Proverbs 23:31

I have not redefined sin. I have shown Scripturally that many are sinning when accusing my Lord of drinking alcoholic beverages just as the Pharisees did.

But, wisdom is justified by her children.

 

Wine-bibber. One who drinks much wine. A great drinker. Jesus undoubtedly lived according to the general customs of the people of his time. He did not affect singularity; he did not separate himself as a Nazarene; he did not practise severe austerities. He ate that which was common, and drank that which was common. As wine was a common article of beverage among the people, he drank it. It was the pure juice of the grape, and, for anything that can be proved, it was without fermentation, In regard to the kind of wine which was used, See Barnes "Joh 2:10". no one should plead this example, at any rate, in favour of making use of the wines that are commonly used in this country—wines, many of which are manufactured here, and without a particle of the pure juice of the grape, and most of which are mixed with brandy, or with noxious drugs, to give them colour and flavour.
Albert Barnes

 

The good wine. This shows that this had all the qualities of real wine. We should not be deceived by the phrase "good wine." We often use the phrase to denote that it is good in proportion to its strength and its power to intoxicate; but no such sense is to be attached to the word here. Pliny, Plutarch, and Horace describe wine as good, or mention that as the best wine, which was harmless or innocent— poculo vini innocentis. The most useful wine—utilissimum vinum— was that which had little strength; and the most wholesome wine— saluberrimum vinum— was that which had not been adulterated by "the addition of anything to the must or juice." Pliny expressly says that a "good wine" was one that was destitute of spirit (lib. iv. c. 13). It should not be assumed, therefore, that the "good wine" was stronger than the other: it is rather to be presumed that it was milder. The wine referred to here was doubtless such as was commonly drunk in Palestine. That was the pure juice of the grape. It was not brandied wine, nor drugged wine, nor wine compounded of various substances, such as we drink in this land. The common wine drunk in Palestine was that which was the simple juice of the grape. We use the word wine now to denote the kind of liquid which passes under that name in this country—always containing a considerable portion of alcohol —not only the alcohol produced by fermentation, but alcohol added to keep it or make it stronger. But we have no right to take that sense of the word, and go with it to the interpretation of the Scriptures. We should endeavour to place ourselves in the exact circumstances of those times, ascertain precisely what idea the word would convey to those who used it then, and apply that sense to the word in the interpretation of the Bible; and there is not the slightest evidence that the word so used would have conveyed any idea but that of the pure juice of the grape, nor the slightest circumstance mentioned in this account that would not be fully met by such a supposition. No man should adduce this instance in favour of drinking wine unless he can prove that the wine made in the" water-pots" of Cana was just like the wine which he proposes to drink. The Saviour’s example may be always pleaded JUST AS IT WAS; but it is a matter of obvious and simple justice that we should find out exactly what the example was before we plead it. There is, moreover, no evidence that any other part of the water was converted into wine than that which was drawn out of the water-casks for the use of the guests. On this supposition, certainly, all the circumstances of the case are met, and the miracle would be more striking. All that was needed was to furnish a supply when the wine that had been prepared was nearly exhausted. The object was not to furnish a large quantity for future use. The miracle, too, would in this way be more apparent and impressive. On this supposition, the casks would appear to be filled with water only; as it was drawn out, it was pure wine. Who could doubt, then, that there was the exertion of miraculous power? All, therefore, that has been said about the Redeemer’s furnishing a large quantity of wine for the newly-married pair, and about his benevolence in doing it, is wholly gratuitous. There is no evidence of it whatever; and it is not necessary to suppose it in order to an explanation of the circumstances of the case.

Albert Barnes on John 2:10

 

That foolish twisting of the Word of God I certainly will not believe.

 

I posted mine from a Bible Commentary, and I did give reference, or did you overlook that?

I will trust the Bible Commentary rather than wikipedia. Also, I have looked up the three on my Encyclopedia Britannica and have not read those statements.

You must remember, Wikipedia is information given by people anywhere. I could go in and email them and tell them I have information that Amy Carter's dad slapped her around and kept her on a chain while they were in the White House and wikipedia would, in all likelihood, print it. They print what they hear.

 

When what the men say lines with what I read in God's Holy Word, I believe what they say.

What Plutarch, Pliny, and Horace, and Albert Barnes have said concerning wine, is in perfect agreement with God's Holy Word.

I fully believe God has preserved His Holy Word. Man can try to twist it and rewrite it to make the Lord as corrupt as his or her heart, but God's Word is preserved in the hearts of those who truly love Him.

 

If you read each passage that mentions wine, in its correct context, you will see that not all yayin was fermented, not all shekar was fermented, not all oinos was fermented.

Wine is not all alcoholic in the Bible.

 

It has been shown already scientifically that unfermented wine can be made by immediately upon putting it in airtight jars and burying it in wet sand. It has also been proven scientifically that that unfermented wine can be preserved in its unfermented state for years.