Strong Drink (Deut. 14:26)

The only two verses that have the word 'drink' in them in Deuteronomy after the twenty-ninth chapter are both found in the thirty-second chapter.

The first in verse fourteen:

This is clearly speaking of God's people drinking nothing more than the juice of the grape... unfermented.

and verse thirty-eight:

This is speaking of the pagan gods that were being offered drink offerings probably in the same manner as the drink offering was offered to the one true God, Jehovah... by being poured out before Him.

 

Does it really matter if there is any record of specific instances of the people observing the laws given? The point of this thread is whether or not God actually allow{ed/s} consumption of some form of alcohol in some amount at some times or in some conditions. God (at least) permitted consumption of wine and other strong drink during the annual tithe festivals. Neither the English nor the Hebrew in this instance allows for non-fermented "wine." This was not God "giving a test" which the people "passed." These were laws that God was giving for the people of Israel to observe after they occupied the promised land. There is no record of specific observances of all the Levitical laws given; does that mean that the people never observed these laws?

 

Uh' - aren't Strong's Exhaustive Concordance and Strong's Concise Concordance both effectively "dictionaries", with the one the effective equivalent of an "unabridged" version? (I can't speak to the 'Concise' version, but that would seem to be a shorter version of the "Exhaustive".) And in fact, does not the "Exhaustive Concordance" have the two sections of words, Hebrew and Greek, titled as the "Dictionary of The Hebrew Bible", and the "Dictionary of the Greek Testament"? Mine does. And, FTR, why are they more "reliable" than other sources, such as 'Young's', Bauer (BAGD), Thayer, Genesius, or 'Cruden's, to name but a few?

Who made this decision?? And what were their credentials, or who appointed them, for such a decision? Sounds awfully 'subjective', to me.

FTR, I am a life-long "teetotaler" who does not even have a clue to what the taste of beer is like (although I have tasted 'bourbon balls' around the holidays, and found them to be of a foul flavor, but I digress), but I still question anyone who would attempt to speak "ex-cathedra" on any subject. One thing we do NOT have, accept, nor believe in, as Baptists, is any Pope from Rome, Nashville, Minneapolis, Dallas, Atlanta, Colorado Springs, (any other Baptist 'center'), the Association, the pulpit, or the pew!

And I also deny any supposed "extra-Biblical 'revelation'", regardless of how "spiritual sounding" any attempt to make it.

Others, with whom I may or may not agree, are just as certain that "God has spoken" (and that "clearly", to them, as well), and have come to a different conclusion. What makes one (your's or whomever's) opinion, for that is what both really are, superior to that of another??

Ed

 

From AresMan:

Apparently! :laugh: :laugh:

Ed

 

Since all I have posted lines up with Scripture, and the Spirit itself revealed this to me, I see nothing wrong with what I posted.

Ed, came your knowledge by man? or by the Spirit?

 

The best way to win a theological argument: claim Holy Spirit revelation! I mean, the Holy Spirit does not contradict Himself; therefore, if He revealed a truth from a debatable issue from the Word, anyone else who has different convictions must not have such access. Who can argue with the Holy Spirit?!

 

Ok. Just so that you understand, a resource like Strong's Concordance (similar to a dictionary) has every known use of any given word in any context found in any and all occurrences in Scripture. Just like a dictionary, any word you look up will have a number of entries: one or more denotations and zero or more connotations coverings all possible contexts in which the word is found. An occurrence of one word does not imply every one of these entries--only the one determined by the context.

To list a few verses where a particular word is used, grab one of the contextual connotations of this word and declare that this is what the word means in all of these contexts is to play dictionary games. To give verses where the context is that of being alert as a soldier and attempting to inject alcohol into its message because such substitution would yet make grammatical and logical sense does not prove such assumptions inherent in the text.

You still have yet to address adequately Deuteronomy 14:26. During the annual (first, second, fourth, fifth years in a seven-year cycle) tithe festivals, the people of Israel could eat unclean animals that they were otherwise forbidden to eat. Even if it could be argued that wine consumption in all cases in any amount (which does not seem apparent) were otherwise forbidden, could God have also (along with eating unclean animals) allowed the people of Israel once per year to drink fermented wine and other strong drink? Neither the English nor the Hebrew provide any wiggle room with wine and strong drink here. Your assertion of "passing a test" is totally unfounded under scrutiny of the Scripture itself and its actual chronology.

 

Some by each, I'd say. Especially when Scripture says something similar.

Ed

 

Scriptures understood.

 

Deuteronomy 15:14.

 

Grapes contain leaven. Fermentation gets rid of leaven.

 

Try again...

Deuteronomy 15:14 is speaking of fresh squeezed juice from the press, not alcoholic beverage.

This verse just proves the abstinence from alcohol according to God's Holy Word.

 

Ya' noticed that too, hunh? Yuppp!

Ed

 

So drink the leaven. It puff up

 

Ituttut,
One thing I wanted you to understand which maybe I did not make clear is that although His Blood Spoke My Name and I agree about not drinking alcohol, we reach that conclusion based on different reasons, and I consider his reason quite flawed.

As far as the technical message of the wording of the Bible, I agree with you and ares man. The Bible does not per say teach abstinence. My conclusion was reached by the necessity of Romans 12:1 and teaching Sunday School to high school kids, being an example for my own kids, and the fact of seeing a history of human tragedy from alcohol close to me which I do not care to go into.

I do not condem anyone who reaches a different conclusion. And quite frankly, HBSMN, your theology in general is fatally flawed, and you just happen to stumble across this one, and for the wrong reason.

 

:laugh: :laugh:

Whether or not I agree, that is a "funny".

Ed

 

Then, I have to agree with you. I am just as much an advocate and practitioner of abstinence from alcoholic beverages as anyone here who thinks that the Bible actually forbids any and all alcohol consumption. I would never recommend anyone drink alcohol for any reason (except in the case of Nyquil or medical perscription).

However, as a Biblical "Berean" I will not let my convictions determine what the Bible itself says. If the Bible doesn't condemn any and all consumption of alcohol and allows some at certain times, then I simply have to accept it. If God allowed the people of Israel to drink wine and strong drink during the annual tithe festivals in Jerusalem (as well as to eat unclean animals), then I have to accept it. I simply will not allow my convictions to dictate what the Scripture means contrary to what it actually plainly says and dance around to justify it. It matters not whether I agree with the position in practice.

 

sounds like yer already dancing around to justify it... completely ignoring the verses that command abstinence.

 

We have common ground of believing His Word, acting on it in our faith, which makes each individual unique as God intended. I find in Romans 12:1 reason for faith given to me, just as you find faith shown to you. But if we get into this now, we'll highjack this thread.