The Best Wine

[annsni]

If all wine was alcoholic, Daniel would have been defiling himself with any wine, not just the king's wine.

The fact is, Daniel would not defile himself with the kings wine and requested water. Later we see him drinking wine. It clearly cannot be the king's wine, else he would be defiling himself.

It is clear, if all wine was alcoholic and it was ok to drink alcohol in moderation, Daniel would have accepted the wine and drank just a little of it. But no, Daniel knew it was forbidden, thus he purposed in his heart not to defile himself by drinking it.

The wine Daniel drank was different from that wine the king drank. It was not fermented.

I totally don't get what you're saying from the passage. Daniel could still have eaten meat and not the king's meat, couldn't he? There's a guy I knew who I honestly couldn't stand and he ran a vineyard. To this day, I wouldn't purchase his wine ever - just a thick-headedness in me - but that doesn't mean I don't purchase wine. The king's wine doesn't necessarily mean the same kind as in alcoholic wine but it means that he would not drink the wine that the king owned, grew, etc. I'm sure there were other wine producers around there and that Daniel could have even made his own. That's how *I* read that Scripture.

 

[Diggin in da Word]

Read it again adn let scripture interpret scripture. Go into Proverbs and see that alcohol deceives and mocks. See God's command to have nothing to do with alcohol.

Daniel purposed in his heart that he would not defile himself with the kings wine.

 

[Ransom]

If all wine was alcoholic, Daniel would have been defiling himself with any wine, not just the king's wine.

Don't you get dizzy arguing in circles?

The wine Daniel drank was different from that wine the king drank. It was not fermented.

Prove from Scripture that Daniel's wine was non-alcoholic.

 

[Hope of Glory]

I read from the passage that grape juice is a mocker, and that when God said that wine was a blessing, he was really trying to just trick us and see if we would let the Spirit interpret Scripture for us and tell us that he wasn't telling the truth.

The previous statement makes as much sense as many here, who are trying to say that wine is not really wine when it's something good; it's only wine when it's bad.

 

[Ransom]

The previous statement makes as much sense as many here, who are trying to say that wine is not really wine when it's something good; it's only wine when it's bad.

Shush! That's "context." :laugh:

 

[tinytim]

Sounds like something we do with our children...

When they are good, they are mine,
When they are bad, they are hers.

When The Bible says Wine is bad, it is alcoholic
When the Bible says Wine is good, it is grape juice

Is that correct?

 

[Ransom]

I'm surprised that there is no mention (so far) that the Bible does in fact make a distinction between wine and grape juice:

He shall drink no vinegar made from wine or strong drink and shall not drink any juice of grapes or eat grapes, fresh or dried. (Num. 6:3)​

And, of course, the Nazirite vow was only temporary:

And after [completing his vow and making his sacrifices] the Nazirite may drink wine. (Num. 6:20)​

There is no reason to assume that Moses meant something different by "wine" in verse 3 than later in verse 20.

 

[Diggin in da Word]

He shall drink no vinegar made from wine or strong drink and shall not drink any juice of grapes or eat grapes, fresh or dried. (Num. 6:3)​

And, of course, the Nazirite vow was only temporary:

And after [completing his vow and making his sacrifices] the Nazirite may drink wine. (Num. 6:20)​

There is no reason to assume that Moses meant something different by "wine" in verse 3 than later in verse 20.

Shall drink no vinegar made from wine. Wine when it ferments becomes alcoholic, if that alcoholic beverage is left to age too long, under certain weather condition, will turn to vinegar. Easily explained in science books.

Nazarite vow was not just temporary. Some would take the vow for life.

After vow was fulfilled, they were allowed to once again drink non fermented wine.

Simple

 

[Hope of Glory]

Somebody on one of these threads did point that out. It was simply swept away and put into the proper "context".

 

[rsr]

Or it was kosher and the king's wasn't.

 

[annsni]

Somebody on one of these threads did point that out. It was simply swept away and put into the proper "context".

Yep - I did - and I said why, if wine meant juice was it mentioned twice as two different things? No one touched that one.

Ann

 

[DHK]

DHK said:

Yes they were vegetarians, and they had only water to drink.

Thanks for your help, Captain Obvious.

I didn't ask whether Daniel and his friends were eating a vegetarian diet. I asked whether we should be following his example in that respect as well, or should we just pick and choose from Daniel's example those things that support our preconceived biases.

You can choose what you want to eat. Daniel chose a vegetarian diet. we are not obligated to do so, though many, volunatarily do so. It has nothing to do with Daniel. Neither does drinking only water. In Daniel 10 it appears that Daniel went on a fast. To abstain from the king's wine would again mean that he drank water, just as he did in chapter one. If he drank either wine or grape juice he would not be fasting. The fact that it states that he was mourning usually includes the idea of fasting.

The choice is yours. No one is compelling you to fast, to follow a diet like Daniel's. It is not a directive that is given in the Bible. Obviously I don't have preconceived ideas from the Book of Daniel. Do you?
DHK

 

[Diggin in da Word]

Daniel 10 it appears that Daniel went on a fast. To abstain from the king's wine would again mean that he drank water, just as he did in chapter one. If he drank either wine or grape juice he would not be fasting. The fact that it states that he was mourning usually includes the idea of fasting.

I do not believe it was the kings wine here in chapter 10. As I stated before, if he abstained in chapter 1 because the wine would defile him, why would he begin drinking it sometime after that?

 

[DHK]

I do not believe it was the kings wine here in chapter 10. As I stated before, if he abstained in chapter 1 because the wine would defile him, why would he begin drinking it sometime after that?

Where does it say he began drinking it?
What evidence do you have that he drank any alcoholic beverage?
I don't believe that Daniel ever ate of the "King's meat". It wouldn't have been "kosher." And he knew it.
DHK

 

[Jerome]

I'm surprised that there is no mention (so far) that the Bible does in fact make a distinction between wine and grape juice:

He shall drink no vinegar made from wine or strong drink and shall not drink any juice of grapes or eat grapes, fresh or dried. (Num. 6:3)​

And, of course, the Nazirite vow was only temporary:

And after [completing his vow and making his sacrifices] the Nazirite may drink wine. (Num. 6:20)​

There is no reason to assume that Moses meant something different by "wine" in verse 3 than later in verse 20.

But there is. Wine in verse twenty stands for all the aforementioned products of the vine. Surely one was not expected to continue to forego vinegar and grapes.


Also, notice that the KJV uses "liquor" for "juice" in verse three.
It seems that a word now commonly denoting alcohol, formerly had a much more general meaning.

 

[Diggin in da Word]

Where does it say he began drinking it?
What evidence do you have that he drank any alcoholic beverage?
I don't believe that Daniel ever ate of the "King's meat". It wouldn't have been "kosher." And he knew it.
DHK

DHK,
You may be misreading me, Bro. I am not saying Daniel drank alcoholic beverage at all.

Daniel 10:3 3 I ate no pleasant bread, neither came flesh nor wine in my mouth, neither did I anoint myself at all, till three whole weeks were fulfilled.

This time period was quite obviously a different time period from that in chapter one as in each chapter, Daniel is speaking of a different king.

Nebuchadnezzar in chapter one
Cyrus in chapter ten.

Just by the third verse of chapter 10, it is seen Daniel drank some kind of wine. As I have stated all along, I do not believe that wine Daniel drank was alcoholic.

 

[Diggin in da Word]

It seems that a word now commonly denoting alcohol, formerly had a much more general meaning.

Amen, Jerome!

 

[annsni]

Also, notice that the KJV uses "liquor" for "juice" in verse three.
It seems that a word now commonly denoting alcohol, formerly had a much more general meaning.

Yet that is the ONLY time the word is used (mishrah) and it means "juice". Wine (yayin), however, is used 140 times and the meaning is "wine" 138 times, "banqueting" one time and "winbibbers" 1 time. It is obvious from reading the context of the verses using the word, it means an alcoholic drink. It is not correct to decide that the word DOESN'T mean alcoholic wine because it's spoken of in a positive light and that it does when it talks of it in a negative light. That just doesn't cut it. God is not a God of confusion and using the same word to mean two completely different things - and a very huge difference at that - is not in His character.

Ann

 

[Diggin in da Word]

yayin is generic. fermented or unfermented dependant upon the context.

Wine that makes the heart glad cannot be that same wine that Solomon warned about no matter how much you say they are the same.

 

[annsni]

yayin is generic. fermented or unfermented dependant upon the context.

Wine that makes the heart glad cannot be that same wine that Solomon warned about no matter how much you say they are the same.

And what is the neutral source that says yayin is generic - meaning both alcoholic and non-alcoholic? Wine that makes the heart glad CAN be the same wine that Solomon spoke of. There is drinking wine and then there is getting drunk on wine no matter how much you say they are the same.