The word wine does not mean alcoholic always.

[The Biblicist]

It really doesn't matter. 1877 is out of date in the scholarly world, period. It's out of date in my own thinking, just as William Patton's book is (1872). If one of my students did a paper on the subject and used either book as a source, I would count off just as I would for Wikipedia as a source.

I think you are wrong here! Wilson demonstrates a common usage throughout the eastern world for over a long period of time and that is not going to change simply because new materials are found. I would challenge you to read it as it has never been refuted, indeed, it is so thorough, no one has even attempted to refute it.

 

[evangelist6589]

Just pointing out his unreliability and illogical progression of thought.

Because it disagrees with your indoctrinated biases?

 

[TCassidy]

Not because it presses wine but because its design is to produce wine which starts with pressing fresh grapes.

This is an example of a fairly common figure of speech called, if I remember correctly, synecdoche, where a part of a thing is used to refer to the entire thing. The pressing of the grapes was used to refer to the entire process of wine making.

 

[John of Japan]

I thought this is the type of texts I would be reading. Do you know why a press is called a "wine" press? Not because it presses wine but because its design is to produce wine which starts with pressing fresh grapes. This is common language used for grapes or putting juice in bags as the intent is fermented wine.

Thank you. When I decide to deeply research the whole matter (someday), I'll keep Wilsom in mind.

This is common in classical Greek and this is the kind of abuse of language I referred. Please read Wilsom's book.

I'm not sure what you mean here. I've not referenced classical Greek at all. (Friberg is a koine lexicon), and the LXX is not in classical Greek but a variety of koine.

 

[John of Japan]

Because it disagrees with your indoctrinated biases?

Thanks one more time. I haven't laughed so much at BB posts in a long time.

Let me put it gently. Preterism of any kind is idiocy, not logical thinking. (Oh, me, I guess that wasn't gentle. Oops.) I've debated enough preterists and read enough of their works to figure that one out. So Gentry is unreliable because of his preterism. That's not a doctrinal bias but an hermeneutical one. I follow grammatical-historical interpretation, not the "spiritual" nonsense one requires to get to preterism.

 

[John of Japan]

I think you are wrong here! Wilson demonstrates a common usage throughout the eastern world for over a long period of time and that is not going to change simply because new materials are found. I would challenge you to read it as it has never been refuted, indeed, it is so thorough, no one has even attempted to refute it.

I just took a quick look at his treatment of tirosh in the Is. 65:6 passage, and it was very unsatisfactory to me. (Don't have time for more than a quick look.) He does seem scholarly, but again, the book is 140 years old.

Later in the book he seems to be combatting a view that tirosh was a solid. I don't think anyone currently holds that view, but I could be wrong.

 

[evangelist6589]

Thanks one more time. I haven't laughed so much at BB posts in a long time.

Let me put it gently. Preterism of any kind is idiocy, not logical thinking. (Oh, me, I guess that wasn't gentle. Oops.) I've debated enough preterists and read enough of their works to figure that one out. So Gentry is unreliable because of his preterism. That's not a doctrinal bias but an hermeneutical one. I follow grammatical-historical interpretation, not the "spiritual" nonsense one requires to get to preterism.

For the second time I was not talking about his eschatology.

 

[evangelist6589]

Thanks one more time. I haven't laughed so much at BB posts in a long time.

Let me put it gently. Preterism of any kind is idiocy, not logical thinking. (Oh, me, I guess that wasn't gentle. Oops.) I've debated enough preterists and read enough of their works to figure that one out. So Gentry is unreliable because of his preterism. That's not a doctrinal bias but an hermeneutical one. I follow grammatical-historical interpretation, not the "spiritual" nonsense one requires to get to preterism.

Lame excuse to avoid addressing the arguments in his book on alcohol. Besides eschatology is a heavily complex and debated field. Partial preterism I disagree with but I may be wrong and they right.

 

[HankD]

This is boring.

HankD

 

[Rolfe]

This is boring.

HankD

Perhaps the next Alcohol Thread will be more interesting.

...Or at least have some original content.

 

[TCassidy]

Perhaps the next Alcohol Thread will be more interesting.

...Or at least have some original content.

It's not that the topic is boring. It is that it somehow devolved into an "It's all about me" thread on the part of a certain poster.

 

[HankD]

Perhaps the next Alcohol Thread will be more interesting.

...Or at least have some original content.

Ya, it's a perennial.

HankD

 

[Rolfe]

It's not that the topic is boring. It is that it somehow devolved into an "It's all about me" thread on the part of a certain poster.

This topic is like a rerun that one watches over and over. After twenty times of the same thing, it gets boring.

 

[HankD]

This topic is like a rerun that one watches over and over. After twenty times of the same thing, it gets boring.

Like Forbidden Planet! I had a consuming teenage crush on Anne Francis (Star actress).
I lived in New Orleans in the 50's when it came out and saw it at least a dozen times

I have ROKU and watched it again after several decades - she can't hold a candle to my wife!

Anne Francis died in 2011 of cancer.

HankD

 

[Marooncat79]

Here we go

Deut 14:26. Context demands alcoholic

The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary actually has a whiskey cellar there.

This only became an issue when Welchs decided they could make $$$ by bad mouthing winw

Yes, the misuse of wine is a mocker. See the Bible

 

[The Biblicist]

I just took a quick look at his treatment of tirosh in the Is. 65:6 passage, and it was very unsatisfactory to me. (Don't have time for more than a quick look.) He does seem scholarly, but again, the book is 140 years old.

Later in the book he seems to be combatting a view that tirosh was a solid. I don't think anyone currently holds that view, but I could be wrong.

The LXX is nothing new, however, I wonder if Friberg did their own research or relied on previous research. I assume you have the volume. Would you be so kind as to quote that portion and their references that you feel is "new" research on this subject? Thank you in advance.

 

[John of Japan]

For the second time I was not talking about his eschatology.

No, I was, and for the second time, the point I made was that his awful eschatology reflects on his scholarship in other areas.

 

[John of Japan]

Lame excuse to avoid addressing the arguments in his book on alcohol. Besides eschatology is a heavily complex and debated field. Partial preterism I disagree with but I may be wrong and they right.

Thanks for another solid laugh. Do you have any idea what you are saying?

Lean in real close to your computer so you can get this. That's right, a little closer. I can't address his arguments until I know what they are!!!

So, if you want me to address his arguments either buy me the book ('cause I'm not buying it), or trot them out here on the BB.

 

[John of Japan]

The LXX is nothing new, however, I wonder if Friberg did their own research or relied on previous research. I assume you have the volume. Would you be so kind as to quote that portion and their references that you feel is "new" research on this subject? Thank you in advance.

What I was referring to was the oinos entry from the Analytical Greek Lexicon of Timothy Friberg, Barbara Friberg and Neva Mille, which I accessed through BibleWorks software. The Fribergs are missionary translators so yes, I'm positive they did their own research.

Their oinos entry, which I quoted earlier on this thread, leaves room for non-alcoholic oinos.

 

[The Biblicist]

What I was referring to was the oinos entry from the Analytical Greek Lexicon of Timothy Friberg, Barbara Friberg and Neva Mille, which I accessed through BibleWorks software. The Fribergs are missionary translators so yes, I'm positive they did their own research.

Their oinos entry, which I quoted earlier on this thread, leaves room for non-alcoholic oinos.

I read your quotation and they provide absolutely nothing but their own interpretation of a passage in Luke. Please, there must be more than what you quoted as this is mere interpretative opinion rather than any solid scholarship based upon recent research or new source materials.