Does the Bible teach a Christian Must abstain from all alcohol?

[JonC]

Okay, Mark Ward. Now it's a sin to read the KJV. Give me a break.

If this is how you are going to argue, I want no part in it. "You're sinning!" "No, you're sinning!" "Nuh uh, it's YOU who are sinning!"

How foolish.

There's nothing in Scripture, no matter how much you try and twist it, that supports drinking alcohol. It is always placed in a bad light, and even considered sinful to LOOK at. Merely looking at alcohol is sinful. A lot of Christians don't get this, which is why they watch sports with alcohol everywhere, they watch movies and TV shows with alcohol in them — this is a great evil.

How foolish of you. I never said it was a sin to read the KJzv

The problem is you do not grasp the language of the KJV snd that is making you change Scripture. If you ate going to use the KJV then you need to do the work to read the KJV
You need to study to understand what the words used in the KJV means. You are not doing that. You are mot actually reading the KJV (you read the words but change the meanings).

The problem is you want to read the Bible as if it were a comic book, never lifting a finger to study or take it seriously.

You misinterpret "skins" in Scripture ("bottles" in the KJV) to mean that the 1st century Jews used things that that did not exist at the time.

You misinterpret a passage in proverbs to mean we should not even look at red wine (you lift a verse and use it to support your own opinion...snd you add to even that misinterpretation).


Look, this is not about drinking or abstaining. I don''t drink.

It is about you forming an opinion and then going to Scripture to find support. It is about you changing Scripture, about laziness in reading and a lack of study, about you not understanding the KJV because 9f its antiquated language.


Is it a sin to read the KJV? No. The problem with the KJV is that the reader must study to know what the antiquated words means and then read it as Scripture. It causes too many - like you - to misread God's Word because they do not understand the language in which it was translated.


If the verse in proverbs means do not even look at red wine then you have to take it for what it says. Jesus woukd have seen red wine, so He sinned. What about white wine?

The verse is speaking not of looking but gazing (of excess). And if you read the entire proverb you would understand that it is about temptation leading to sin. It is not a prohibiting looking at a glass of red wine, or even consuming a glass of red wine.

As long as you are reading the Bible to support your opinions you will not have any understanding of God's Word.


Now why read a translation of the Bible that you do not understand? It only causes you to make errors.

If you understood the language in which the KJV was translated you would have known that "bottles" were made of sheep or goat skins.

If you are not going to learn the language of a translation then pick a translation that is in your language.

 

[JonC]

Sorry, but I have been all the way through the messages in this thread, and I cannot find a single post from somebody called Mark Ward.

Never heard of Mark Ward....but I know of a Ward Cleaver.

@Servant of Jehovah is just scrambling because he made a mistake he doesn't want to acknowledge (misunderstanding the 16th century use of word) snd not realizing that Proverbs are composed proverbs.

When people make mistakes they are unwilling to own up to a common action is to start comparing their opponent to somebody they view in a poor way.

We see this all the time in politics and religious discussions.

What this means is:

1. Whoever Mark Ward is @Servant of Jehovah believes tge comparison an insult.
2. @Servant of Jehovah cannot defend his belief (otherwise "Mark Ward" wouldn't have came up).

 

[JesusFan]

Never heard of Mark Ward....but I know of a Ward Cleaver.

@Servant of Jehovah is just scrambling because he made a mistake he doesn't want to acknowledge (misunderstanding the 16th century use of word) snd not realizing that Proverbs are composed proverbs.

When people make mistakes they are unwilling to own up to a common action is to start comparing their opponent to somebody they view in a poor way.

We see this all the time in politics and religious discussions.

What this means is:

1. Whoever Mark Ward is @Servant of Jehovah believes tge comparison an insult.
2. @Servant of Jehovah cannot defend his belief (otherwise "Mark Ward" wouldn't have came up).

For everyone who is curious, mark ward is a fellow Brother in the Lord, who grew up to be strong KJVO, but over time changed to allow for also Modern translations such as Nkjv/Esv/Nas are acceptable to use, and what really ticked off KJVO was his book

Authorized: The Use & Misuse of the King James Bible​

In which he stated that the Kjv was and still is a good translation, but due to English having changed so much in grammar and terminology and meaning since 1611, many who read and use it are misunderstanding and reading back into it what they think it meant, but not what meant back in 1611

 

[JonC]

For everyone who is curious, mark ward is a fellow Brother in the Lord, who grew up to be strong KJVO, but over time changed to allow for also Modern translations such as Nkjv/Esv/Nas are acceptable to use, and what really ticked off KJVO was his book

Authorized: The Use & Misuse of the King James Bible​

In which he stated that the Kjv was and still is a good translation, but due to English having changed so much in grammar and terminology and meaning since 1611, many who read and use it are misunderstanding and reading back into it what they think it meant, but not what meant back in 1611

Thanks for the info.

Just reading your post Mark Ward was absolutely correct. @Servant of Jehovah proved him correct in this thread.

I agree with his conclusions (that you mention).

The KJV is a wonderful translation. The problem is not with the translation but that language has changed and the KJV is mo longer in the Engkish vernacular.

@Servant of Jehovah demonstrated this with his confusion over the KJV use of "bottles", which in the KJV vernacular would be containers made of sheep or goat skins. This made him condemn other translations which expressed the same thing, and essentually condemn the actual KJV use of "bottles".

That seems, at first glance, to be a minor error on his part. But it changes the entire passage (what the passage is relating to the people). And, obviously, not knowing the 16th century language can easily lead to greater errors if relying on an antiquated translation.

 

[JesusFan]

Thanks for the info.

Just reading your post Mark Ward was absolutely correct. @Servant of Jehovah proved him correct in this thread.

I agree with his conclusions (that you mention).

The KJV is a wonderful translation. The problem is not with the translation but that language has changed and the KJV is mo longer in the Engkish vernacular.

@Servant of Jehovah demonstrated this with his confusion over the KJV use of "bottles", which in the KJV vernacular would be containers made of sheep or goat skins. This made him condemn other translations which expressed the same thing, and essentually condemn the actual KJV use of "bottles".

That seems, at first glance, to be a minor error on his part. But it changes the entire passage (what the passage is relating to the people). And, obviously, not knowing the 16th century language can easily lead to greater errors if relying on an antiquated translation.

That is why if using the Kjv bible, one should also have and use something like a Webster dictionary, or one of the books that define words used in Kjv version

 

[Salty]

That is why if using the Kjv bible, one should also have and use something like a Webster dictionary, or one of the books that define words used in Kjv version

I have heard KJO stating they do not need dictionaries, commentaries, ect as the KJV is self-explanatory!

 

[JesusFan]

I have heard KJO stating they do not need dictionaries, commentaries, ect as the KJV is self-explanatory!

Probably same ones who state that the Kjv text corrects the Greek and Hebrew texts

 

[JonC]

That is why if using the Kjv bible, one should also have and use something like a Webster dictionary, or one of the books that define words used in Kjv version

The KJV dies need a commentary in some places. For the most part, and with essential doctrine, I think anybody can get by just with the text.

But some things are misinterpreted because of the antiquated language, especially when people try to single out a word. Examples are "so" in John 3:16, "Lucifer" mistaken as a proper name, and here with "bottles"instead of "skins". The issue is not really the KJV but that the language has changed.

This is more problematic with KJVO people because they are often unwilling to study and see what words meant (they assume the KJV language fits the current vernacular).


I typically just ignore KJVO Christians because their understanding of Scripture is tainted and their worship shifted from God to a single translation. Just let them be and praise God some are being saved. Christ will make them stand despite the error.

 

[JesusFan]

The KJV dies need a commentary in some places. For the most part, and with essential doctrine, I think anybody can get by just with the text.

But some things are misinterpreted because of the antiquated language, especially when people try to single out a word. Examples are "so" in John 3:16, "Lucifer" mistaken as a proper name, and here with "bottles"instead of "skins". The issue is not really the KJV but that the language has changed.

This is more problematic with KJVO people because they are often unwilling to study and see what words meant (they assume the KJV language fits the current vernacular).


I typically just ignore KJVO Christians because their understanding of Scripture is tainted and their worship shifted from God to a single translation. Just let them be and praise God some are being saved. Christ will make them stand despite the error.

Just think that it would be good to have them read with understanding the vernacular as was used and understood back in 1611, as trying to force upon the kjv text current English understanding can make them read it wrongly

 

[JonC]

Just think that it would be good to have them read with understanding the vernacular as was used and understood back in 1611, as trying to force upon the kjv text current English understanding can make them read it wrongly

I agree. KJVO is an issue for many reasons, and it does lead to error.

But it is like many other errors. Tradition is hard to shake. And yes, tradition can rob one from understanding or experiencing the depth of God's Word. But it dies not rob obe of salvation.

 

[Some Rando]

...It does not teach that a Christian must abstain. I wish it did actually.

 

[Natha]

YES i am strongly believing alcohol need to stop .. Eccl 11: 10 Therefore remove sorrow from thy heart, and put away evil from thy flesh: for childhood and youth are vanity.

 

[Servant of Jehovah]

The problem is you do not grasp the language of the KJV snd that is making you change Scripture. If you ate going to use the KJV then you need to do the work to read the KJV
You need to study to understand what the words used in the KJV means. You are not doing that. You are mot actually reading the KJV (you read the words but change the meanings).

After doing some additional study, I must admit I was wrong about what a "bottle" is.

Joshua 9:13 "And these bottles of wine, which we filled, were new; and, behold, they be rent: and these our garments and our shoes are become old by reason of the very long journey."

Bottles having been rent means it was some sort of fabric, not glass like I'd believed. For this, I would like to apologize for getting that wrong.

The problem is you want to read the Bible as if it were a comic book, never lifting a finger to study or take it seriously.

I would prefer however that you didn't accuse me of this sort of thing. If I read the Bible like a comic book, then I wouldn't read the Bible—because comic books are 9 out of 10 times satanic.

You misinterpret "skins" in Scripture ("bottles" in the KJV) to mean that the 1st century Jews used things that that did not exist at the time.

If you'd used Scripture to define itself, then it would have been easier. I think it's a waste of time to try and say "What did the Jews at that time use?" because truthfully, you can never know outside of Scripture.

People talk about trying to interpret via historical context, which 1) God never commanded, 2) you can never know what actually happened in history outside the Bible, and 3) using the practices of the pagans as a reference point to understand the Word of God is unthinkable.

You misinterpret a passage in proverbs to mean we should not even look at red wine (you lift a verse and use it to support your own opinion...snd you add to even that misinterpretation).

...
If the verse in proverbs means do not even look at red wine then you have to take it for what it says. Jesus woukd have seen red wine, so He sinned. What about white wine?

I take the passage in Proverbs very literally. It says that you aren't to look upon the wine when it is red in the cup. Now, yes, that passage is specifically talking about red wine. But the Scriptures elsewhere call wine defiling and unholy. So the principle of Proverbs 23:31 is still applicable to other defiling and unholy wines. Proverbs 23:31 is an extension of Psalm 101:3 which commands us not to look at sinful things.

Using Psalm 101:3 as our basis (though it's not the only verse on this topic), and then recognizing Proverbs 23:21 as an extension of said verse, we come to the conclusion that other wines that are unholy are included under Psalm 101:3 at least.

And Jesus made grape juice (non-defiling, holy wine; Jesus gives His bride grape juice, Song 2:5).

It is about you forming an opinion and then going to Scripture to find support. It is about you changing Scripture, about laziness in reading and a lack of study, about you not understanding the KJV because 9f its antiquated language.

I do not come to the Scriptures with an idea and then read it into the text. But, what I actually do is look at my "opinions" and then contrast them with the Bible. I've had to change a lot of beliefs I wanted to hold onto, but the Scriptures say otherwise.

Currently, for example, I have always been taught the gift of healing went away. But...I'm not sure it has because I see no Scripture to support that idea. Do you think I want to admit healing still exists? No, I don't. So while I need to make sure I'm careful, trust me, I'm not reading whatever I want into the text of Scripture.

The verse is speaking not of looking but gazing (of excess). And if you read the entire proverb you would understand that it is about temptation leading to sin. It is not a prohibiting looking at a glass of red wine, or even consuming a glass of red wine.

The prohibition is not overruled by the reason for it. Plus, it's an extension of Psalm 101:3 as mentioned before.

 

[JesusFan]

...It does not teach that a Christian must abstain. I wish it did actually.

The Holy Spirit Himself disagreed with you on this though

 

[JesusFan]

After doing some additional study, I must admit I was wrong about what a "bottle" is.

Joshua 9:13 "And these bottles of wine, which we filled, were new; and, behold, they be rent: and these our garments and our shoes are become old by reason of the very long journey."

Bottles having been rent means it was some sort of fabric, not glass like I'd believed. For this, I would like to apologize for getting that wrong.


I would prefer however that you didn't accuse me of this sort of thing. If I read the Bible like a comic book, then I wouldn't read the Bible—because comic books are 9 out of 10 times satanic.


If you'd used Scripture to define itself, then it would have been easier. I think it's a waste of time to try and say "What did the Jews at that time use?" because truthfully, you can never know outside of Scripture.

People talk about trying to interpret via historical context, which 1) God never commanded, 2) you can never know what actually happened in history outside the Bible, and 3) using the practices of the pagans as a reference point to understand the Word of God is unthinkable.


I take the passage in Proverbs very literally. It says that you aren't to look upon the wine when it is red in the cup. Now, yes, that passage is specifically talking about red wine. But the Scriptures elsewhere call wine defiling and unholy. So the principle of Proverbs 23:31 is still applicable to other defiling and unholy wines. Proverbs 23:31 is an extension of Psalm 101:3 which commands us not to look at sinful things.

Using Psalm 101:3 as our basis (though it's not the only verse on this topic), and then recognizing Proverbs 23:21 as an extension of said verse, we come to the conclusion that other wines that are unholy are included under Psalm 101:3 at least.

And Jesus made grape juice (non-defiling, holy wine; Jesus gives His bride grape juice, Song 2:5).


I do not come to the Scriptures with an idea and then read it into the text. But, what I actually do is look at my "opinions" and then contrast them with the Bible. I've had to change a lot of beliefs I wanted to hold onto, but the Scriptures say otherwise.

Currently, for example, I have always been taught the gift of healing went away. But...I'm not sure it has because I see no Scripture to support that idea. Do you think I want to admit healing still exists? No, I don't. So while I need to make sure I'm careful, trust me, I'm not reading whatever I want into the text of Scripture.


The prohibition is not overruled by the reason for it. Plus, it's an extension of Psalm 101:3 as mentioned before.

Still no biblical command that means that we must abstain from all alcohol

 

[Some Rando]

The Holy Spirit Himself disagreed with you on this though

No, he didn't.
The Bible does not teach that a Christian must abstain from all alcohol.
I simply wish, however, that it did. I wish it were that simple.

 

[JonC]

After doing some additional study, I must admit I was wrong about what a "bottle" is.

Joshua 9:13 "And these bottles of wine, which we filled, were new; and, behold, they be rent: and these our garments and our shoes are become old by reason of the very long journey."

Bottles having been rent means it was some sort of fabric, not glass like I'd believed. For this, I would like to apologize for getting that wrong.


I would prefer however that you didn't accuse me of this sort of thing. If I read the Bible like a comic book, then I wouldn't read the Bible—because comic books are 9 out of 10 times satanic.


If you'd used Scripture to define itself, then it would have been easier. I think it's a waste of time to try and say "What did the Jews at that time use?" because truthfully, you can never know outside of Scripture.

People talk about trying to interpret via historical context, which 1) God never commanded, 2) you can never know what actually happened in history outside the Bible, and 3) using the practices of the pagans as a reference point to understand the Word of God is unthinkable.


I take the passage in Proverbs very literally. It says that you aren't to look upon the wine when it is red in the cup. Now, yes, that passage is specifically talking about red wine. But the Scriptures elsewhere call wine defiling and unholy. So the principle of Proverbs 23:31 is still applicable to other defiling and unholy wines. Proverbs 23:31 is an extension of Psalm 101:3 which commands us not to look at sinful things.

Using Psalm 101:3 as our basis (though it's not the only verse on this topic), and then recognizing Proverbs 23:21 as an extension of said verse, we come to the conclusion that other wines that are unholy are included under Psalm 101:3 at least.

And Jesus made grape juice (non-defiling, holy wine; Jesus gives His bride grape juice, Song 2:5).


I do not come to the Scriptures with an idea and then read it into the text. But, what I actually do is look at my "opinions" and then contrast them with the Bible. I've had to change a lot of beliefs I wanted to hold onto, but the Scriptures say otherwise.

Currently, for example, I have always been taught the gift of healing went away. But...I'm not sure it has because I see no Scripture to support that idea. Do you think I want to admit healing still exists? No, I don't. So while I need to make sure I'm careful, trust me, I'm not reading whatever I want into the text of Scripture.


The prohibition is not overruled by the reason for it. Plus, it's an extension of Psalm 101:3 as mentioned before.

No apology needed. We are talking about over four centuries of language changing between the KJV and today. People miss these changes all the time, it is easy to do.

I do apologize that I said you changed Scrioture. I was trying to make a point, but should jave done so differently.

That said, I find no reason to acceot that wine in the Bible was non-fermented grape juice. There is too rich a history of wine in Scripture, and too many archeological discoveries from that period, and too much use of wine as a symbol for me to believe that.

Scripture does not draw a distinction between the wine in the NT and the warnings of overindulgence . I understand why you want the distinction to exist, I just disagree that it does.

Jesus said that they called Him a glutton and a drunkard because, unlike John, He came eating and drinking. They accused Him of overindulgence because John did not eat traditional food or drink wine.

The things you miss out on in Scripture by focusing on alcohol are not important, I suppose, because they are 5aught in orher ways in the Bible.

 

[Marooncat79]

Dueteronomy 14:26

 

[37818]

The Greek word translated wine includes the juice of grapes from unfermented to being fermented.

 

[Servant of Jehovah]

The Greek word translated wine includes the juice of grapes from unfermented to being fermented.

It's same in the OT with the word יין.