Proverbs 23:31

DHK,

I see. The KJV is good enough for Paul when speaking about wine.
But when speaking about "bottles" we leave our hypocrisy and bias behind, go to the Greek and Hebrew, and find out the true meaning of the word. Then we find out that "Bottle" doesn't always mean bottle, just as "wine" doesn't always mean wine.
DHK

Language is colloquial - whether it is ancient Hebrew or modern English. There are certainly instances in antiquity where "wine" refers to a nonalcoholic beverage.

But the text says "wine". There is no compelling reason to insist on "grape juice" here. True it is possible. But you are not arguing that it is possible - you are insiting that it is obviously true. I understand that you see yourself as interpreting the Bible in a respectful way, assuming that Christ could not make or drink something impure. But my quip is that you, using this opinion as a pretext, insist that this less than literal reading is clearly the only possible reading.

It is difficult for you to hold this position and then go back and argue against the evolutionists that the creation account must be literal when you dispense with the literal reading here.

 

The simple admission from "the other side" that wine does not always mean wine" is good enough. How many times throughout this thread have I read "wine means wine" remark. It seems to me to be rather ignorant when it can mean either fermented or non-fermented depending on the context. So why then does "the other side" blindly say "wine means wine" without even looking it up in a proper dictionary? It is just plain foolishness. At least I have your attention now.

The text says wine in as much as it says juice or cider. It is generic, and we need to understand it that way. Our duty is not to understand the word as alcoholic but to understand the word as the KJV writers used it as either/or. That is the first and foremost principle of hermeneutics. How did the writers (whether KJV or Hebrew or Greek) writers of that time understand the word being used. It did not automatically mean fermented. It meant "either/or" just as cider does today.

Secondly, how is it used in the context?
How is it used in other Scriptures?
And most importantly of all, are there other Scriptures that would oppose or contradict one's interpretation, for the Bible does not contradict itself.

1. In context, one could concede that it could mean fermented wine. But it doesn't have to. At first glance that seems to be the most natural reading. But let's look further.

2. As already indicated, the word has an either/or meaning so it could mean grape juice. Is there any reason why it would mean grape juice rather than fermented wine?

3. The strongest argument, (which for some reason has been rejected by many) is the symbolic element. "Wine" as opposed to grape juice is a fermented drink, which in that day still contained yeast, and in the Israelites mind, was a picture of leavened juice--corruption.
Yeast or leaven throughout the Bible is a picture of sin, corruption, and false doctrine. Please don't try to refute this with the parable of the Kingdom, because Christ is using yeast as yeast, and we don't teach doctring from parables. "Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees." It meant false doctrine--doctrine which had been corrupted.

4. Before the Passover meal there was absolutely no leaven allowed in their houses whatsoever.

5. The Passover and the Last Supper were the same thing. That is when Jesus instituted the Last Supper. He used grape juice then to indicate the purity of his blood and unleavened bread, the purity of his body. In other words Christ was not corrupted or tainted with sin. To use either wine or leavened bread would be to symbolize a sinful Christ--blasphemous.

6. The order of drinking beverages was reversed at the wedding of Cana, which we all agree with. The better wines were served first. Then when men have well drunk it didn't matter what kind of wine they brought out. But the governor noted that Jesus saved or "brought out" the best "wine" (grape juice) for the last. We have no solid reason to believe that this was actual alcholic wine given the reasons already stated.
Furthermore the governor stated "when men have already "well drunk then..."
The statement infers that Jesus would contribute to drunkeness. They (or at least some of them) had already well drunk. Many of them probably were already near the point of inebriation. Now Jesus, according to you and others would bring forth the best alcoholic beverage that man has ever tasted. Of course they would want as much as possible, and they would end up drunk. Thus Jesus himself would be sinning in contributing to their sin. Please don't give the analogy that that would be the same as the governor of the feast contributing to their gluttony. It isn't.
Even to this day their are laws in our government that make the host of a feast or even a bar responsible in part for the death of one responsible for getting behind the wheel of a car when drunk. We are responsible for contributing to the drunkenness of others. And the Bible also states thsi.

Habakkuk 2:15 Woe to him who is giving drink to his neighbour, Pouring out thy bottle, and also making drunk, In order to look on their nakedness.

--Would Jesus bring this curse upon himself by:
giving his neighbor (those at the wedding) alcohol to drink, and,
by contributing to their drunkenness?

No! of course not! He would never go against His Word. He could not have made alcohol or fermented wine. He could not have contributed to anyone's drunkenness. To do so would have been sin. Christ was sinless.
The wine (unfermented) was good because it was perfect. It was created out of water. It was new. It was not old or aged. There is no indication that he created anything with age. He created something from water, which also leads credence to the view that it was juice and not wine. It was perfect and not corrupted. It was better than anything that man had ever tasted (whether fermented or unfermented). How could the governor of the feast say anything less than what he said. The best was saved to the last. It was the best. Nothing could have been better. However, it was juice not fermented wine. Christ would not have gone against His own Word.
DHK

 

No insult intended. I asked a question which you did not directly answer.

 

I would apologize had I accused you HBSMN. I asked IF, for you did not agree with what was presented, and the presentation was informative scripture on the subject under discussion.

You did accuse me. I forgive you for I understand that you do not understand.

 

DHK,

1. In context, one could concede that it could mean fermented wine. But it doesn't have to. At first glance that seems to be the most natural reading. But let's look further.


I suggest that it is in fact the most natural reading. While I agree that the word can mean unfermented wine that is an exception and not the rule. If I offer you a glass of wine (which I would not because neither of us drinks) your likely response would be, "No!" - and not "oh is it fermented wine or not?".

And I understand your arguments for it not being fermented wine in certain instances. It is quite possible, if not likely, that Jesus used grape juice for the last supper. But to me it seems clear that the wedding at Cana and Paul's instructions to Timothy are real fermented wine.

Again - my argument is that I feel your interpretation takes liberty with the texts, texts which sternly warn against drunkenness - but which, in my estimation, do not offer any unilateral prohibition on alcohol. I respect your opinion - but I find your certainty in your position to be excessive in light of what the text actually says.

 

Another lie to cover up a lie? Here is what you said,

You did not say IF, you said that HBSMN said that God is evil. Your attacks on HBSMN and others that stand for the truth are uncalled for and I do not see why Moderators allow it to go on.

I will also say what HBSMN said, but in a different approach. You are allowing evil to reside in your heart by accusing HBSMN in such a manner.

 

The wisdom of this world is foolishness with God.

 

The wisdom of this world is foolishness with God.

How right you are SFIC - which is why I suggest that you not impose your "wisdom" on the text.

The Bible says what it says.

 

Yes, it does say what it says. And that is why my Lord and Savior could not have made, nor drank fermented beverage. Nor could He have given it to His Children.

 

Can anyone give testimony of "good" coming out of drinking anything acoholic? Has acohol ever cause trouble in your homes. Have you had a husband that came in all hours of the night because of acohol. Have you and the children sit hugged up waiting until he finally decided to come home and when he did then trouble just began?
I have seen so called "social drinking" and its not social with their tongues hanging out and puking all over the place. On TV and movies they make drinking so glamorous and they never show the real drinking problems. Has anyone ever tried to "make out" with your wife because of acohol? I could go on for ever about the bad things of drinking acohol but can you go on just a little about the good things of drinking and don't give me some Dr. report for they don't know whether even milk is good for you or not.

I quit acohol when I was 29 because it cost me everything I ever worked out and including a position took me years to get back. Respect is something you earn and believe me from being on both ends of the employment ends, anyone who drinks does not end up with respect. I have seen the owners of plants push each other up and down the office walk path in desk chairs laughing at the top of their lungs. You think they earned our respect? Again, tell me the "good" about drinking.

I think about the young reading our posts and knowing we are all Baptists saying its ok to drink moderately. When you take one drink you lose that control to "drink moderate" and want another and then another. My cousin called here last night and he is dying from being in Veitnam and has 4 months to live and he was drunk as a skunk. My wife talked for over an hour with him but I told her when it was over, "you were not talking to him, you were talking to acohol". I been there done that and I hate to see good brothers and sisters advocating to those reading these posts that it is ok to drink moderate when knowing after the first drink it is no longer them making the decision to drink moderate, but the acohol choosing whether to have another or not. Christians should always speak against drinking and never never advocate its ok to have a few. Baloney!! peace

 

Amen, Brother Bob!

And that is why God's Word tells us to abstain totally from alcohol.

 

I think about the young reading our posts and knowing we are all Baptists saying its ok to drink moderately.

Bob I agree with you.

But I think the biggest part of the discussion here is not whether Christians should be able to drink in moderation but rahter how we are to interpret the Bible when it speaks of "wine". My dislike for alcohol does not justify me in reading into the Bible what it does not say.

And that is a big issue for me - because it deals with the veracity and immutability of the Bible.

 

I have no problem with my kids drinking moderatly when they become adults.

I would be much more concerned with them reading into the Bible doctrine that was not taught just because they wanted scripture to conform to their beliefs instead of them conforming to scripture.

Look at the consiquences of both. If I am wrong and we are not to drink at all then it is a sin. But I am saved and I do my best because I am saved. If we a person was to inturpret the Bible based on what they want it to say, there are a multitude of cults waiting for such a person to lead them to the wrong path.

 

Show me where it says its ok to drink moderately?

But more than that, show me where mortal man can drink 1 drink and not have his brain affected to where he will not make the same decision about the next drink as he made about the 1st and so on and on and on. Moderately drinking is hogwash.

 

LOL, I have done that time and again. You can look back on the posts. Show me where it is ok to eat moderatly.

I drink moderatly and have no problem with it. My decitions are not affected and have no problem saying no to a second drink. I dont expect you to believe me, but that is your problem not mine.

Frankly I am not looking for your approval. You can judge away for all I care.

 

decisions

Everyone the cops pull over that are drunk say exactly what you just said. :thumbs: Not that I am saying you are drinking.

wonder how many crawl in the back door and say "honey, I only had 2."

Judge? I didn't even know you drink until you told it.

How do you gather fermented wine from the fields, will someone tell me please?

Deuteronomy, chapter 11

13: And it shall come to pass, if ye shall hearken diligently unto my commandments which I command you this day, to love

the LORD your God, and to serve him with all your heart and with all your soul,

14: That I will give you the rain of your land in his due season, the first rain and the latter rain, that thou mayest gather in

thy corn, and thy wine, and thine oil.

15: And I will send grass in thy fields for thy cattle, that thou mayest eat and be full.


Jere.40

10: As for me, behold, I will dwell at Mizpah to serve the Chaldeans, which will come unto us: but ye, gather ye wine, and

summer fruits, and oil, and put them in your vessels, and dwell in your cities that ye have taken.

 

Brother Bob,

Although I agree with the Word of God as you do, we must be careful not to turn their wine into water. They cannot get through the day without that shotglass or without their belief that God condones alcohol in the life of the believer even if they choose not to drink..

 

Making the point there was wine that was still hanging on the vine back then.