The Best Wine

You keep saying it has been proven. Where? You think if you say it enough times that it "proves" your point? Please...

 

If wine were rotten, or corrupt, he might have a point. But since it isn't, he doesn't.

Grapes CAN rot. That is far different from fermentation. Fermentation is a type of preservation, not a type of rot or corruption.

It's fine if you choose not to have any alcoholic beverages. For you it would be a sin, believing as you do. But the Bible is very clear about what wine is, or it would not spend time warning about it!

And to take the definition of wine from a dream....that's pretty far-fetched.

 

You ain't got any smarter in a week, have you>?

 

And
"cider" is cider, not apple juice. Thanks so much for the good advice and clarity.

 

So, Charles, if the Webster's dictionary was good enough for the Apostle Paul, it should be good enough for us. Is that your belief? Are you KJVO, or don't you like dealing with words like yayin or oinos?
DHK

 

fermentation:
a. The anaerobic conversion of sugar to carbon dioxide and alcohol by yeast.

b. Any of a group of chemical reactions induced by living or nonliving ferments that split complex organic compounds into relatively simple substances.

from http://www.answers.com/topic/fermentation

------------

One process by which carbon-containing compounds are broken down in an energy yielding process. Fermentation occurs during times of low oxygen supply and is therefore known as a type of anaerobic respiration.

from http://www.biochem.northwestern.edu/holmgren/Glossary/Definitions/Def-F/fermentation.html

------------

chemical conversion into simpler substances: the breakdown of carbohydrates by microorganisms. Many pharmaceuticals are produced by fermentation.

from http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861611002/fermentation.html

------------------------------

In other words, there is no rot involved, no corruption involved. It is a process invented by God to contribute to respiration and medication.

 

You do well at making the Bible conform to your own desires.
Your first couple of statements are entirely false.
First, almost every civilization of that era knew how to make safe water. Even then water was not always the main problem as it is today. Remember, they didn’t have the pollution problems that we have today—all the way from acid rain, smog, litter, over-population in many countries, improper sanitation, etc. Their water, for the most part was pure and safe. Much of the time they gathered rain water; other times they were able to gather water from many of the brooks and rills that ran throughout the hills and mounts that were scattered throughout that area.
When I went camping in my younger days with my father we often drank water than ran in streams straight from the source of glaciers, or from mountain streams, brooks deep into the forests. We never had any stomach problems. The water was as pure as any man on earth could find. Just because much of our land has been run over and polluted now doesn’t mean it was that way in Biblical times.
Many of you have the habit of imposing 20th century habits and customs on first century culture. It is wrong, and shows a lack of Bible study skills.

Secondly, you have in one swipe of the brush painted every juice of the country as poisonous. You are not just pointing to grape juice here, but that which comes from apples, peaches, apricots, and so many other fruits. Are the Israelites so unintelligent that according to your standards they were unable to make any safe juice whatsoever? Do you have proof of this. Why should we take your word that virtually all their food (especially beverages were contamninated. What a ridiculous assumption and accusation to make.

Thirdly, You speak of milk. Has it occurred to you that the safest thing for infants and children to be raised on is milk. Has it occurred to you that the Israelites knew how to protect their young in the preparation of milk in the same way that we do today? Has it occurred to you that their family farm cows didn’t have BSE, and they didn’t have to worry about such things at that time. They had the protection of Jehovah on their lives who promised them that “none of these disease would come upon them.” Milk was a staple. More than wine (whether it was spoken of it fermented or unfermented terms), the land of the future, the Promised land, was picturesquely described as a land flowing with milk and honey. It was milk that was described as save, as desirable to have, as good and safe, and delicious—as a quality of the Millennial Kingdom yet to come. Sin won’t reign in the Millennial Kingdom. Neither will fermented wine, a symbol of sin and corrupton. But milk will be thre. Better get used to it. If Christ were to come today your sinful drinking days are over.

Foruth, and probably the most biggest and false assumption that has been made to this point is that fermented wine (alcoholic beverages) are save to dring simply because they have been fermented. This is entirely false. Here you go again, trying to impose 20th century technology ont 1st century culture. It is ridiculous to do so and shows a lack of Bible study. What on earth would possess you to think that feremented wine could in any way be safe and even have the capability of acting as an antiseptic or have the capability of killing germs such as E-coli. That is pure myth, and you have nothing to back it up with. Wine then was not made like wine is today. As was pointed out earlier, pasteuization did not even come into being until the 19th century. What makes you think that the wine that they had then was pasteurized and perfectly safe to drink, any safer than grape juice, just because it was fermeneted. That is simply myth. Let us consider some history of Bbilcial wines:

http://www.travelnet.co.il/israel/Wine.htm#TITLE4
The wines of the first century of Palestome were terrible. Generally speaking they wouldn’t have been the type of wine served at the wedding of Cana. That is why the governor was so surprised when Jesus served his perfect wine (grape juice). Nothing can compare with that which is perfect.
Ther very fact that these wines had other elements thrown into them such as juniper berries proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that they themselves were contaminated with all kinds of foreign matter and other bacteria. They were not safe wines. Fermentation meant nothing, as far as germ free or sanitation was concerned. Grape juice was probably a much safer drink than the wines of that day.
In effect, don’t make the Bible conform to your own desires. This is what you have been doing all along. You want to make a case for social drinking. Don’t do it at the expense of the Bible.
DHK

 

Just like cholera is endemic, and all the other diseases that Jesus healed. If all these diseases are endemic then why did Jesus have to heal the multitudes with their various multitudes, and why did Paul tell Timothy to take a little grape juice for his stomach's sake?

You deal with it. If I were not a Christian and a totally secular person I would give you the advice to go and see a psychiatrist to deal with your fears. You have a fear of going any deeper than the English word "wine."
A news flash!! Jesus did not speak English! Neither did the other writers of the NT. They spoke Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, and Latin. The OT was written primarily in Hebrew and the NT was written in Greek. Those are the languages that we must deal with, not English, not "wine."

Wine means wine.
Cider means cider.
oinos means oinos.
yayin means yayin.

And in each case, each of those words may mean feremented or unfermented wine (or grape juice), all depending on the context. The context gives the Key, especially compared with other Scriptures. Lot and Noah drank Yayin (fermented wine). They got drunk. The context tells us so. Jesus drank grape juice at the wedding of Cana. Other Scripture gives us the clues that Jesus would never drink that which goes agains his nature, his sinless perfection. There are many reasons why Jesus could not have drunk fermented wine: many of them have already been presented, but also ignored.

That is false. The fact is that fermented wines of the first century contained more germs than the fresh grape juice that came straight from the vine, as Jesus said he drank. You have neglected your Bible study. They did not drink pasteurized wine. They drank wine which in some cases was quite unsanitary if not even dirty. How can you say it killed germs? That is one of the most ridiculous statements to make. Again, you are imposing 20th century standards on 1st century culture.

Never use absolutes. It is a logical absolute. Everyone? I trow not! And yes, Jesus would consider it evil. Wines of that century were typically unsanitary, especially if fermented. Fermentation (no matter how you try to explain it away, was just another form of a process of corruption). What would you expect from a corruption of the pure juice of the grape?

"Nowadays" That has been your problem all along. "Nowadays" isn't in the first century. They are like comparing apples and oranges. And the 20th century wines are no where near in comparision to the 1st century wines.

And so it is--by you.

Please take your own advice.
DHK

 

Simplify it Helen.
Your own definition says in part; "the breakdwon..."
The breakdown of anything is basically succumbing to the 2nd law of Thermodynamics in which there is an increasing tendency of entropy in this world, or a tendency toward the degeneration of all things. That includes grape juice. The minute it is made it starts to decay, even if that includes the fermentation process described by Solomon in Prov.23.

The process of fermentation was indeed one of decay and corruption in the first century and before that time. There was no process of pasteurization or controlled processes such as we have today. Like I have been saying to Charles I say to you. Don't try and impose 20th century technology on 1st century culture. It doesn't work. The wines of that period of time were terrible--terrible in taste, terrible in quality, and terrible in santiation. There was no way that they could kill germs, be used as an antiseptic, etc. All of that is myth. As far as a beverage that was healthy for the body, grape-juice fit that bill far more easily than the Israelites' wines.
DHK

 

And, you "break down" trees to make lumber to build houses.

Oh, and pollution and over-population are not the only culprits in water-borne diseases. Beaver fever is a prime example, in that it almost always occurs in rural areas. Here's a link to the subject: Beaver Fever

 

I
I'm very much familiar with beaver fever. It is something that has been encountered more in recent times than in times gone by, as is most of these diseases.

 

***Moderator comment*** Paragraph is edited out because of inappropriate content that has nothing to do with the subject of the thread.

Even in moderate amounts, alcoholic wine is pleasurable because it is special. Regular grape juice is no more pleasurable or special than other varities of the Juicy-Juice I give my kids in their lunch everyday. Nor is fresh-squeezed grape juice any more pleasurable or special then, say, fresh squeezed pineapple, peach, or pomegranate juice, or even sweetened iced tea with lemon, for a few examples.

Most folks around me don't even like grape juice. And grapes do not grow anywhere nearby. We prefer sweetened iced tea with lemon. That is the tradition around here. Snapple and Lipton are really good brands. A few times the store was out of grape juice. So we used Celestial Seasonings Red Zinger tea for communion, since it is red and contains no devil-hol, like Jesus' blood.

***Moderator comment*** Paragraph is edited out because of inappropriate content that has nothing to do with the subject of the thread.

With fermented grape juice, it is the bare content and use of it that determines its nature, not the context or intent in which it is done or used. Same with sex.

***Moderator comment*** Paragraph is edited out because of inappropriate content that has nothing to do with the subject of the thread.

 

For what it is worth, the full Merriam-Webster dictionary definition is the following:

1 a : the alcoholic fermented juice of fresh grapes used as a beverage b : wine or a substitute used in Christian communion services
2 : the alcoholic usually fermented juice of a plant product (as a fruit) used as a beverage <blackberry wine>
3 : something that invigorates or intoxicates
4 : a dark red

The 1913 edition gave this definition:

1. The expressed juice of grapes, esp. when fermented; a beverage or liquor prepared from grapes by squeezing out their juice, and (usually) allowing it to ferment.

 

DHK,

Yes I actually can read Hebrew and Greek. And that doesn't mean I have a Strong's with the numbers in it. Yayin and oinos both mean wine when they are used in the Bible and in extrabiblical literature. You and others comb the scripture looking for single instances where it can be shown that they are grape juice. But they are wine. The ancients drank wine - and few abstained.

-John the Baptist did abstain and the Bible notes it - and it notes that he abstained from oinos, wine. Or does that mean he abstained from garpe juice? Right after this we read that Jesus was called a glutton and a winebibber - so He did NOT abstain. He went to the houses of many to talk about things - and would have partaken of their food and wine. Of course Jesus did not sin in excess.

-The Bible also notes that excess of yayin is bad and that those who are mighty to drink it are not wise. So why would drinking a bit too much grape juice be bad? These are speaking of wine.

-Paul told Timothy to take a little wine. How would grape juice have helped his stomach? Paul realized that if Timothy drnk wine he would not get water-borne illness.

-We also read that wine maketh the heart merry - and it is a mocker. Grape juice does neither of these. A little wine can make one fell calm and too much leads to drunkenness.

And what of the diseases? Babies drink their mothers' milk. Drinking raw animal milk is an infection risk. You drank out of mountain streams. I assume you mean streams in the mountains of Canada? This is hardly the same as the rivers and streams of Palestine.

Your little diatribe contains some footnoted references - but that does not make it right. It is still quite clear that yayin and oinos are wine. If they were not then there could be no Biblical prohibition of drunkenness(grape juice is a mocker? Noah drunk with grape juice? Jesus called a glutton and an grape juice-bibber?). How can you continue to assert that whenever these words are used in a bad light they mean alcoholic wine and when they are used in a positive light, that they are good. Certainly people drank fresh grape juice when it was around - but that was not all the time.

The Bible shows that Jesus was able to drink small amounts of wine and not fall into the sin of drunkenness. The Bible never says that drinking wine is sin - only drunkenness. As I have said before you may be well-meaing but you are practicing dishonest exegesis. If you can chnage the verses about wine then could we not also change the verses which speak about gays or sex?

 

DHK, ***Moderator edit***

First of all, the laws of thermodynamics have to do with heat exchange in a closed system. Basically, the famous second law simply states that in a closed system where you have an area of more heat and an area of less heat, that the heat will end up evening out so that there will be no difference in temperature anywhere in the system. It has NOTHING to do with grape juice or fermentation!

Second, the breaking down of substances is what our bodies do when we digest things. Cellular respiration, on which your life depends, involves the breaking down of complex sugars into very simple substances which are then stored as chemical bonds for use by the cell as needed. That is NOT either the second law of thermodynamics, which existed from the moment of creation, or even entropy, which is probably what you were referring to in the first place.

Historically, the wine of the ancients is not something about whose quality you know. We can only know that people controlled the fermentation process so that wine could be made and, presumably, aged. Your idea that it was horrid stuff has no basis in history or reality. Your reference to what was shipped does not include what was kept and used in normal households.

You stated the wine, or alcohol, of that time was not fit for sanitation. Then why was it used for that? We have historic records of such. These ancients who built the pyramids, figured the circumference of the earth, and did brain surgery poured fruit and grain JUICES into wounds???? Get real.... This is not 'imposing' 20th century standards on earlier folk. Fermentation of fruits produces alcohol which is an antiseptic. It doesn't matter if there is leftover fruit material at the bottom (dregs) or not. The alcoholic content still endows the liquid with antiseptic and antibiotic properties.

Grape juice does NOT help a bad stomach -- especially if an ulcer is involved. Ulcers are now known to be caused primarily by a bacteria. Bacteria thrive on sugars. However alcohol kills them. And there are substances in only wine, of all alcoholic drinks (flavenoids) which help with healing and the production of softer scar tissue. Paul was absolutely correct in telling Timothy to take a little wine -- fermented -- for his stomach's sake. Grape juice would have aggravated the situation.

You also stated fermentation was corruption. Nonsense. Fermentation prevents corruption. There is no 'pure juice' of the grape unless you extract it grape by grape with a hypodermic needle! The minute it hits the air it is exposed to the yeast which begin to work immediately on it to break down the complex (and therefore unusable in that state) sugars into more simple and usable sugars. Your saliva does the same thing! Your mouth does not produce alcohol, but it certainly breaks down complex sugars almost immediately. Take a bite of bread and chew it and hold it in your mouth for a few minutes. It starts to become sweet....

This is God's plan to make substances useable for our cells. It is not corruption.

You stated that water was not unsafe the way it is today, that the ancients knew how to purify it. Right....that is, of course, why dysentary would sweep the Roman slums, for instance. That is, of course, why animals were allowed to pee and poop in the very rivers they drew their water out of. All I can figure is that you have invented your own version of history to satisfy yourself. However it evidently has little or nothing to do with history as it was lived.

Water from your lovely little brooks and rills ran over ground that had been used by animals. They drank from this water, swam and walked through it, etc. In Australia, where my husband comes from, they still gather rainwater in tanks. That water must be boiled, especially in summer, to guarantee that there are no bacteria or other organisms that can make you sick.

Yes, we used to go camping, too, and unless you get your water immediately from the source you are liable to get any number of water-borne problems, and even then it is chancy. One of my daughters was a white water raft guide on the lower fork of the American River, coming out of the Sierra Nevada mountains. Every summer there were people that made themselves sick on those trips up the river (you have to go up in order to raft down...) because they drank that 'pure' water. Every summer there were campers who ended up in hospitals because they were so sure that the water coming straight from the ground in the high mountains was pure. You and your father took chances and came out OK. I do not recommend your method of choosing what to drink to others. Even the climbers on Mt. Ararat who are looking for the Ark take the melting snow, boil it, and add chemicals to make sure it is safe to drink.

Again, if the wine in the Bible were not alcoholic, there would be no warnings against it.

 

All these posts are starting to make me laugh. I studied history and anthropology at the University of Alabama where I earned a B.A. in both subjects. My main foucus of study is American history with an emphasis of culture and development.


If you look back only as far as the 1600s you will see that alcohol is a main stay of the typical persons diet in the colonies. Why? Because there was NOT any knowledge of how to purify water, therefore beer or wine was used as a drink. Even the Puritan Children consumed beer , at all times during the day including in the morning.

The highest use of alcohol in America was during the post Civil war era, and it is interesting that a man Named Dr. Welch came up with fixing the problem of FERMENTING WINE, he learned that pastorzing it would STOP the fermentation process and therefore Grape Juice would stay Grape Juice and NOT turn into wine.

Grapes have always been a highly prized fruit, it would be unreasonable to think that grapes would be used to make a fruit juice to give out at a wedding.

Although I do not personally drink, I think its very funny that people here think that at the Wedding at Cana , there would be Grape Juice and not wine.



Also people need to look further into the temperance movement that swept through out the U.S. during the 1800s. This was a moral issue that many pastors brought into their preaching, its funny that Southern Baptists were the last ones to stop drinking when their northern brothers had started the temperance movement first.