Nipate
Forum => Controversial => Topic started by: vooke on January 28, 2015, 10:48:45 PM
-
The word wine appears over 200 times in the KJV Bible. Overall, what is the Bible's opinion of wine, and by extension, alcohol? It is the purpose of this study to decide one way or the other, especially as some critics claim that the Bible offer
[/i]
http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nowine.php
Couldn't agree more
-
Very interesting study. Everywhere you look, you will come across studies, research and bar talk promoting the health benefits of "moderate drinking." Men have gone great lengths to justify moderation, including alcohol manufacturers who, having accepted the reality that alcohol is bad, employ political correctness in the language of moderation.
The author is thorough in his textual criticism, but comes to an erroneous conclusion. For example, he argues that moderation is acceptable because although the Bible condemns drinking of fermented wine, it only does so for certain persons (for example, priests - the Ezekiel and Timothy quotes for priests, bishops and deacons while ministering). Hence, to the author, the restriction does not apply to ordinary people and even the mentioned ministers when they are not serving.
This is a profound contradiction. First, all believers are called to the priesthood (I Pet 2:9; Gal 2:28). Therefore, as far as belief is concerned, there is no justification to apply restrictions on alcohol to priests while exempting the "ordinary" people.
Secondly, the author's interpretation of the restriction to ministers is self-defeating and avoids practical problems associated with moderation and priestly service. Priests were to be ceremonially pure at all times, whether ministering before the Lord or walking the streets and not just him but his family too (Lev 21). There is no practical use of avoiding alcohol while ministering and drinking it even moderately at other times. If a deacon drinks today, can he serve communion tomorrow?
Thirdly, the big question of moderation. Two problems here. What is moderate consumption? One man's moderation is another's poison (the author himself admits he cannot stomach any alcohol). What is moderation today quickly becomes full-fledged alcoholism in no time. Second problem of moderation is to bring in the curse of relativity and humanism. In simple terms, the decision to account one thing as truth or deception, good and evil no longer lies with God's word but one's own decision or feelings (if it feels right, go ahead with it).
The totality of the Bible leaves no doubt that alcohol (fermented wine) is prohibited. Moderation leaves a believer in the position of the hyena who wanted the best of both worlds, being neither hot nor cold (Revelation 3:15).
Acceptance of the truth about alcohol brings us to the plain conclusion that even fermented milk and leavened bread should be avoided.
The Devil is a liar, and a very good one at that. Moderate alcohol consumption is a super good deception.
Post script for Vooke: Bacchiochi was Seventh-day Adventist.
-
Very interesting study. Everywhere you look, you will come across studies, research and bar talk promoting the health benefits of "moderate drinking." Men have gone great lengths to justify moderation, including alcohol manufacturers who, having accepted the reality that alcohol is bad, employ political correctness in the language of moderation.
Facts are stubborn and I would not argue with them simply because they appear to contradict my beliefs
The author is thorough in his textual criticism, but comes to an erroneous conclusion. For example, he argues that moderation is acceptable because although the Bible condemns drinking of fermented wine, it only does so for certain persons (for example, priests - the Ezekiel and Timothy quotes for priests, bishops and deacons while ministering). Hence, to the author, the restriction does not apply to ordinary people and even the mentioned ministers when they are not serving.
This is a profound contradiction. First, all believers are called to the priesthood (I Pet 2:9; Gal 2:28). Therefore, as far as belief is concerned, there is no justification to apply restrictions on alcohol to priests while exempting the "ordinary" people.
Please note his basis is scriptures and you would do well to refute the specific scriptures.
Note the believers who are called to priesthood partook of the fermented wine during the Lord's table...that is bad hermeneutic. Let's be clear that the ONLY circumstance under which wine was forbidden was for priests DURING ministry. That is what any honest student of OT would conclude
Secondly, the author's interpretation of the restriction to ministers is self-defeating and avoids practical problems associated with moderation and priestly service. Priests were to be ceremonially pure at all times, whether ministering before the Lord or walking the streets and not just him but his family too (Lev 21). There is no practical use of avoiding alcohol while ministering and drinking it even moderately at other times. If a deacon drinks today, can he serve communion tomorrow?
If there are problems with moderation, we should take them up with the One who required the same not the ones who point to this
If Priests were to be ceremonially pure throughout, then the elaborate cleansing just BEFORE ministering was redundant
Thirdly, the big question of moderation. Two problems here. What is moderate consumption? One man's moderation is another's poison (the author himself admits he cannot stomach any alcohol). What is moderation today quickly becomes full-fledged alcoholism in no time. Second problem of moderation is to bring in the curse of relativity and humanism. In simple terms, the decision to account one thing as truth or deception, good and evil no longer lies with God's word but one's own decision or feelings (if it feels right, go ahead with it).
I could ask you the same question regarding GLUTTONY. What is GLUTTONY?
How comes scriptures condemn the same without forbidding eating?
While you are right in pointing to the subjectivity of determining 'moderation',you are wrong in using it as a basis for rejecting alcohol. If we are to resort to 'science' to determine how much food we need per day, should we not resort to the same to determine how much alcohol is 'moderate'?
Quickly turning to decency, do you know there are no ABSOLUTES when it comes to dressing? There are no rules/commands beyond modest. It is down to you to determine modesty. For Muslims, it is nudity until the entire body is covered
The totality of the Bible leaves no doubt that alcohol (fermented wine) is prohibited. Moderation leaves a believer in the position of the hyena who wanted the best of both worlds, being neither hot nor cold (Revelation 3:15).
How I wish you would have pointed to specific parts of the author's hermeneutic that you disagree with instead of making sweeping statements. If you respect his criticism, respond accordingly
Acceptance of the truth about alcohol brings us to the plain conclusion that even fermented milk and leavened bread should be avoided.
Here comes White
The Devil is a liar, and a very good one at that. Moderate alcohol consumption is a super good deception.
No it's not unless you are accusing the Jesus of deception.
Post script for Vooke: Bacchiochi was Seventh-day Adventist.
It is sad that such start with predetermined dogma in mind and then dig into scriptures for validation of the same...from the little I have read of him, that's one author worth all scorn in this world for his shody attempt at scholarship
-
Let's face it. No amount of internet bandwidth will convince a person set to drink moderately or otherwise to change. The very same verses quoted in the link can and have been used to justify alcohol consumption. It is only with the coming of evidence on alcohol related deaths and other social ills that its evil sister of moderation was born. Two things out of all you have said.
Note the believers who are called to priesthood partook of the fermented wine during the Lord's table...that is bad hermeneutic.
Please show using the same hermeneutics that believers called to the priesthood partook of fermented wine in OT or NT.
Let's be clear that the ONLY circumstance under which wine was forbidden was for priests DURING ministry. That is what any honest student of OT would conclude
Show from the Bible how priests separated themselves for part-time work.
It is sad that such start with predetermined dogma in mind and then dig into scriptures for validation of the same...from the little I have read of him, that's one author worth all scorn in this world for his shody attempt at scholarship
Argumentum ad hominem again? Did I not see your formed opinions here?
-
1. Your job is not to convince people to change but to demonstrate the Truth from scriptures and leave them to make up their mind. The writer so eloquently dismantles empty arguments against drinking alcohol and you have NOTHING on him, both you and your Adventist brother
2. Moderation is scriptural and no amount of shouting changes that.
3. You would do well to put. Date to WHEN 'evidence of alcohol related deaths and other social ills' came about. Then we can examine attitudes towards alcohol BEFORE and AFTER that to test the veracity of your statement
4. The author has so intelligently and eloquently demonstrated that wine whether in NT or OT was intoxicating. Unless you want me to repeat every argument he has put forward. You are wasting time
5. Look at the priests. From what did the priests cleanse themselves BEFORE offering sacrifices if they were ceremonially pure throughout their lives on and off the altar?
Did you read this article?
Here is an excerpt for you
Lev. 10:9 Do not drink wine nor strong drink, thou, nor thy sons with thee, when ye go into the tabernacle of the congregation, lest ye die: it shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations:
Critics mention this as an "against" passage, but fail to note the context. In this passage a directive is given specifically to Aaron and his descendants not to consume wine or "strong drink" before ministering at the tabernacle. This is a prohibition on alcohol at a specific time and for specific persons only. This is also the first appearance in the Bible of the term "strong drink" (shekar). At any event, this verse does not advocate teetotalling for all persons or at all times.
Numbers 6:3 He shall separate himself from wine and strong drink, and shall drink no vinegar of wine, or vinegar of strong drink, neither shall he drink any liquor of grapes, nor eat moist grapes, or dried.
This verse refers again to a specific group, the Nazirites, and forbids the entire range of alcoholic products to them -- yayin, shekar, and "liquor", or mishrah, which appears only here in the OT -- unless a specific ceremony is offered (6:20).
6. Kindly refute a SINGLE statement from that article.
Your inability to do so men's two things; the man is reasoning with Wisdom you can't withstand and, you and your Adventist bias are terribly far from the truth and the smartest thing to do is to hold your peace to avoid embrassment.
Let's face it. No amount of internet bandwidth will convince a person set to drink moderately or otherwise to change. The very same verses quoted in the link can and have been used to justify alcohol consumption. It is only with the coming of evidence on alcohol related deaths and other social ills that its evil sister of moderation was born. Two things out of all you have said.
Note the believers who are called to priesthood partook of the fermented wine during the Lord's table...that is bad hermeneutic.
Please show using the same hermeneutics that believers called to the priesthood partook of fermented wine in OT or NT.
Let's be clear that the ONLY circumstance under which wine was forbidden was for priests DURING ministry. That is what any honest student of OT would conclude
Show from the Bible how priests separated themselves for part-time work.
It is sad that such start with predetermined dogma in mind and then dig into scriptures for validation of the same...from the little I have read of him, that's one author worth all scorn in this world for his shody attempt at scholarship
Argumentum ad hominem again? Did I not see your formed opinions here?
-
1. I have little time for argumentum ad hominem. I indulge you for the sake of the truth, and I'm glad you mention context. Priests never worked part-time. I asked you to show from scripture any such calling and you didn't because there is no such thing.
2. Moderation is scriptural and no amount of shouting changes that.
Look who's shouting now.
Priests had other duties (like cleansing lepers - Lev 13:14-17; Luke 5:14) Can you imagine a moderately intoxicated priest performing such a duty? Moderation is a word never mentioned in the Bible in relation to alcoholism. One can only force it in by misinterpretation.
The author has so intelligently and eloquently demonstrated that wine whether in NT or OT was intoxicating. Unless you want me to repeat every argument he has put forward. You are wasting time
The argument is neither convincing nor eloquent. In any case, the truth needs no eloquence nor argumentation. In the wedding at Cana for example, where do you find evidence of intoxication? Or at the Last Supper, do you find it plausible that when faced with the task of paying the price for sin, the Saviour offers them a tot of intoxicating drink?
The greatest argument (if we must argue) against alcohol consumption is that it robs man of the ability to think rationally. Anybody who is sober can see who between God and the Devil benefits from a slightly, moderately or very drunken believer or priest.
5. Look at the priests. From what did the priests cleanse themselves BEFORE offering sacrifices if they were ceremonially pure throughout their lives on and off the altar?
Makes no point. Cleansing was definitely required. Priests could be ceremonially impure from many things, and drunkenness was not the only unclean thing that could cause them to die during a sacrifice (outside of sacrifices, having unkempt hair and dirty clothes, as drunks are wont to, was lethal enough - Lev 10:6). Nadab and Abihu died from carrying strange fire (Lev 10). Often, ceremonial uncleanliness did not necessarily arise from actions they had control over.
1 Peter 5:8King James Version (KJV)
8 Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:
King James Version (KJV)
-
1 Timothy 4:1-4 (ESV)
?1 Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, 2 through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared, 3 who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. 4 For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, 5 for it is made holy by the word of God and prayer.
http://www.ellenwhiteexposed.com/egw17.htm
-
1. There is a game the pharisees played. They call it playing dumb
Leviticus 10:9 (ESV)
Drink no wine or strong drink, you or your sons with you, when you go into the tent of meeting, lest you die. It shall be a statute forever throughout your generations.
If you really revere the Truth, let's examine this verse.
(A) Is God forbidding a specific people (the Levite) from drinking wine/strong drink under specific circumstance?
(B) Is it sensible forbidding them partaking wine/strong drink WHEN they were going to the tabernacle if they had already been forbidden from the same?
2. They had 100001 duties and Holy Spirit inspired writers would have us know that wine/strong drink were forbidden WHEN going to the tabernacle. Would it make it easier to comprehend if they wrote it in your vernacular?
Before we proceed, you need to CLARIFY, was alcohol forbidden in the OT?
3. I have never seen such an eloquent rebuttal of fickle arguments, not sure whether it is Bachiolli who mde it easy with his unscriptural and inconsistent theories or it is this man's Wisdom from above,or BOTH!
4. You are incoherent. Jesus turned water to wine, wine then as now is intoxicating. Last Supper had wine...if any of these is too difficult to believe, you are a step away from atheism, believing what is convenient
5. The Spirit could have left simple instructions forbidding alcohol. None exists. Many others as shared above point to partaking of the same by above all, the King of Kings
6. On priests you are missing the point and I will repeat it again just for you. They was forbidden from partaking alcohol WHEN entering the sanctuary. It makes least sense forbidding this when it was ALREADY forbidden
1. I have little time for argumentum ad hominem. I indulge you for the sake of the truth, and I'm glad you mention context. Priests never worked part-time. I asked you to show from scripture any such calling and you didn't because there is no such thing.
2. Moderation is scriptural and no amount of shouting changes that.
Look who's shouting now.
Priests had other duties (like cleansing lepers - Lev 13:14-17; Luke 5:14) Can you imagine a moderately intoxicated priest performing such a duty? Moderation is a word never mentioned in the Bible in relation to alcoholism. One can only force it in by misinterpretation.
The author has so intelligently and eloquently demonstrated that wine whether in NT or OT was intoxicating. Unless you want me to repeat every argument he has put forward. You are wasting time
The argument is neither convincing nor eloquent. In any case, the truth needs no eloquence nor argumentation. In the wedding at Cana for example, where do you find evidence of intoxication? Or at the Last Supper, do you find it plausible that when faced with the task of paying the price for sin, the Saviour offers them a tot of intoxicating drink?
The greatest argument (if we must argue) against alcohol consumption is that it robs man of the ability to think rationally. Anybody who is sober can see who between God and the Devil benefits from a slightly, moderately or very drunken believer or priest.
5. Look at the priests. From what did the priests cleanse themselves BEFORE offering sacrifices if they were ceremonially pure throughout their lives on and off the altar?
Makes no point. Cleansing was definitely required. Priests could be ceremonially impure from many things, and drunkenness was not the only unclean thing that could cause them to die during a sacrifice (outside of sacrifices, having unkempt hair and dirty clothes, as drunks are wont to, was lethal enough - Lev 10:6). Nadab and Abihu died from carrying strange fire (Lev 10). Often, ceremonial uncleanliness did not necessarily arise from actions they had control over.
1 Peter 5:8King James Version (KJV)
8 Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:
King James Version (KJV)
-
Misinterpretation again. The 'faith' is not eating and drinking. We have from several verses quoted in the link, ample evidence that alcohol is intoxicating. Not everything can be consumed just because you have a thankful heart. Just a few days ago, some villagers died after drinking milk from a cow bitten by a poisonous snake. I believe they were thankful as they received it, more or less like in that verse. Every Friday, drunks accept a tot from their friends with gross gratitude, and die soon afterwards. That verse does not help the moderate drinking cause.
-
Alcohol is intoxicating. And who said it is not? You are engaging in silly straw-man. Whether imbibing intoxicating alcohol is forbidden is the question. We have countless examples of unqualified partaking of the same by among others Jesus Christ. They called him Glutton and wine-biber
Gluttony comes from eating, are you Nuff Sed a glutton because you eat?
Drunkenness is EXPRESSLY forbidden. Why forbid drunkenness and alcohol intake at the same time?
Misinterpretation again. The 'faith' is not eating and drinking. We have from several verses quoted in the link, ample evidence that alcohol is intoxicating. Not everything can be consumed just because you have a thankful heart. Just a few days ago, some villagers died after drinking milk from a cow bitten by a poisonous snake. I believe they were thankful as they received it, more or less like in that verse. Every Friday, drunks accept a tot from their friends with gross gratitude, and die soon afterwards. That verse does not help the moderate drinking cause.
-
Alcohol is intoxicating. And who said it is not? You are engaging in silly straw-man. Whether imbibing intoxicating alcohol is forbidden is the question. We have countless examples of unqualified partaking of the same by among others Jesus Christ. They called him Glutton and wine-biber
Gluttony comes from eating, are you Nuff Sed a glutton because you eat?
Drunkenness is EXPRESSLY forbidden. Why forbid drunkenness and alcohol intake at the same time?
Misinterpretation again. The 'faith' is not eating and drinking. We have from several verses quoted in the link, ample evidence that alcohol is intoxicating. Not everything can be consumed just because you have a thankful heart. Just a few days ago, some villagers died after drinking milk from a cow bitten by a poisonous snake. I believe they were thankful as they received it, more or less like in that verse. Every Friday, drunks accept a tot from their friends with gross gratitude, and die soon afterwards. That verse does not help the moderate drinking cause.
The express purpose of drinking alcoholic beverages is to get drunk. The author rightly shows there are two kinds of wine in the Bible (with alcohol and sans alcohol). To claim Jesus drank intoxicating wine is preposterous. No Bible verse ever records Jesus singing gibberish, staggering, peeing in his pants, leering at women, mocking or making irrational statements. In fact, even at the wedding in Cana, no indication is given of him partaking of the wine he had miraculously made, assuming it was alcoholic.
Wine is a mocker, slight, moderate or abundant.
Prov 20
1 Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging: and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise.
Proverbs 23:31-35
"Do not look at wine when it is red, when it sparkles in the cup and goes down smoothly. In the end it bites like a serpent and stings like an adder. Your eyes will see strange things, and your heart utter perverse things. You will be like one who lies down in the midst of the sea, like one who lies on the top of a mast. They struck me, you will say, but I was not hurt; they beat me, but I did not feel it. When shall I awake? I must have another drink." (ESV)
-
You are educated but you can't possibly make such ignorant statements. Who told you EVERYONE drinks to get drunk?
We have no record of Jesus drunk but we have record of him drinking alcohol. We have no record of Jesus exhibiting gluttony (which you can't define nor confirm if you are a glutton yourself) but we had him eating.What's so preposterous about that?
Luke 7:33-35 (ESV) 33 For John the Baptist has come eating no bread and drinking no wine, and you say, ‘He has a demon.’ 34 The Son of Man has come eating and drinking, and you say, ‘Look at him! A glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’ 35 Yet wisdom is justified by all her children.”
Why would Jesus' enemies accuse him of drunkenness if he never took nothing intoxicating?
Why would all those warnings over wine is there no express or otherwise prohibition of the same?
1Tim 3:8 (ESV)
8 Deacons likewise must be dignified, not double-tongued, not addicted to much wine, not greedy for dishonest gain.
Titus 2:3 (ESV)
3 Older women likewise are to be reverent in behavior, not slanderers or slaves to much wine. They are to teach what is good,
And on the parables of our Lord... Look up the parable of wine and wine skin. Again note how Jesus mentions fermentation as a matter of fact among his contemporaries. You can bet they took all the trouble because they was extremely idle
The express purpose of drinking alcoholic beverages is to get drunk. The author rightly shows there are two kinds of wine in the Bible (with alcohol and sans alcohol). To claim Jesus drank intoxicating wine is preposterous. No Bible verse ever records Jesus singing gibberish, staggering, peeing in his pants, leering at women, mocking or making irrational statements. In fact, even at the wedding in Cana, no indication is given of him partaking of the wine he had miraculously made, assuming it was alcoholic.
Wine is a mocker, slight, moderate or abundant.
Prov 20
1 Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging: and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise.
Proverbs 23:31-35
"Do not look at wine when it is red, when it sparkles in the cup and goes down smoothly. In the end it bites like a serpent and stings like an adder. Your eyes will see strange things, and your heart utter perverse things. You will be like one who lies down in the midst of the sea, like one who lies on the top of a mast. They struck me, you will say, but I was not hurt; they beat me, but I did not feel it. When shall I awake? I must have another drink." (ESV)
-
Honesty is a virtue. The scriptures refer to two kinds of wine - intoxicating and non-intoxicating, non-alcoholic wine or fresh grape juice. So when you quote verses or comment, be clear on which one you mean to avoid confusing the matters at hand. You don't help your credentials as a believer by joining the enemies of Jesus in mocking and accusing him falsely. You choose to ignore the verses that condemn drinking of alcohol while imbibing those quoting Christ's accusers.
1Tim 3:8 (ESV)
8 Deacons likewise must be dignified, not double-tongued, not addicted to much wine, not greedy for dishonest gain.
Going by your textual misinterpretation, the latter part of the verse would mean that deacons would be fine with moderate dishonesty because it's not greed.
-
Honesty and Adventism are mutually exclusive but let me hope and pray you are different.
There are no verses condemning alcohol nowhere, just drunkenness. Please for your own sake READ this article I shared and refute a SINGLE statement therein. You think you are doing Christ a favor by misreading his Word to suit your White-esque prejudices?
Honesty is a virtue. The scriptures refer to two kinds of wine - intoxicating and non-intoxicating, non-alcoholic wine or fresh grape juice. So when you quote verses or comment, be clear on which one you mean to avoid confusing the matters at hand. You don't help your credentials as a believer by joining the enemies of Jesus in mocking and accusing him falsely. You choose to ignore the verses that condemn drinking of alcohol while imbibing those quoting Christ's accusers.
1Tim 3:8 (ESV)
8 Deacons likewise must be dignified, not double-tongued, not addicted to much wine, not greedy for dishonest gain.
Going by your textual misinterpretation, the latter part of the verse would mean that deacons would be fine with moderate dishonesty because it's not greed.
Kindly explain to me why you would arrive at this conclusion. And BTW, this is silly deflection.
Paul says NOT ADDICTED TO MUCH WINE. You may want to look at the verse under ANY translation and tell us whether you need the mad false prophet to interpret it for you
http://biblehub.com/1_timothy/3-8.htm
-
In the verse, you apply your interpretation and come to the conclusion that moderation is required for wine and deacons. When I point at the rest of the verse and ask you to apply the same interpretation on dishonesty, you hurl ad hominem. Where did honesty go?
-
What same interpretation?
Here is what I do when am studying; I use KJV primarily out of habit and over shorter portions I read up to five versions including a Literal translation.
Let us look at this verse in ANY version and test them for consistency,shall we?
1 Timothy 3:8 (KJ21) | In Context | Whole Chapter
8 Likewise must the deacons be serious, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy for filthy lucre,
1 Timothy 3:8 (ASV) | In Context | Whole Chapter
8 Deacons in like manner must be grave, not double-tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre;
1 Timothy 3:8 (AMP) | In Context | Whole Chapter
8 In like manner the deacons [must be] worthy of respect, not shifty and double-talkers but sincere in what they say, not given to much wine, not greedy for base gain [craving wealth and resorting to ignoble and dishonest methods of getting it].
1 Timothy 3:8 (CEB) | In Context | Whole Chapter
Servants in God’s household
8 In the same way, servants in the church should be dignified, not two-faced, heavy drinkers, or greedy for money.
1 Timothy 3:8 (CJB) | In Context | Whole Chapter
8 Likewise, the shammashim must be of good character, people whose word can be trusted. They must not give themselves to excessive drinking or be greedy for dishonest gain.
1 Timothy 3:8 (CEV) | In Context | Whole Chapter
Church Officers
8 Church officers should be serious. They must not be liars, heavy drinkers, or greedy for money.
https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/1%20Timothy%203:8
Not given to much wine,not heavy drinkers,must not give themselves to excessive drinking,
Does any of this read like prohibition?
What wine do you think Paul had in mind here,alcoholic/non-alcoholic?
In the verse, you apply your interpretation and come to the conclusion that moderation is required for wine and deacons. When I point at the rest of the verse and ask you to apply the same interpretation on dishonesty, you hurl ad hominem. Where did honesty go?
-
http://absg.adventist.org/2015/1Q/TE/PDFs/ETQ115_09.pdf
What We Put in Our Mouths: The Alcohol Question
It is no accident that the first human temptation concerned food (Gen.
3:3). It was being disobedient and eating of the wrong thing that brought
sin and death into the world (Gen. 3:1–7, Rom. 5:12). We shouldn’t miss
the hard fact, too, that the first mention of wine drinking in the Bible is
presented in a terribly negative and degrading story (Gen. 9:21).
Read Proverbs 23:29–35. How is the use of alcohol presented in these
verses?
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
Who hasn’t seen personally just how devastating alcohol can be? Sure,
not everyone who drinks becomes a drunk in the gutter. But most likely
drunks in the gutter never imagined, the first time they took a drink, that
they would eventually wind up in the gutter.
“The man who has formed the habit of drinking intoxicating liquor, is
in a desperate situation. He cannot be reasoned with, or persuaded to deny
himself the indulgence. His stomach and brain are diseased, his will power
is weakened, and his appetite uncontrollable. The prince of the powers of
darkness holds him in bondage that he has no power to break.”—Ellen G.
White Comments, The SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 3, p. 1162.
Read Proverbs 23:1–8. Why should we control our appetites?
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
This admonition is about more than table manners. The biblical text
is a warning to those who like to eat and who have great appetites (Prov.
23:2). The metaphor of putting a knife to one’s throat is particularly
strong: it not only means curbing the appetite but also suggests the
risk to your health and even your life that could be caused by overeating.
The Hebrew word (bin), translated “consider carefully,” expresses
the idea of carefully deciding between eating various kinds of food.
The same word is used by Solomon when he asks for wisdom to help
him “discern [bin] between good and evil” (1 Kings 3:9, NKJV). The
inspired writer has more in mind than just the issue of appetite control.
His counsel may also concern banquets and social drinking, when we
are pressured and tempted to “desire his delicacies” (Prov. 23:3, NKJV).
For Application:
Think about someone you know whose life has been destroyed by
alcohol. Why should that example alone be enough to help you to
understand why you should never put that poison in your body?
-
Very interesting. My abstention is not based on religion but clearly I could learn from this.
Vooke wacha sneaky ad hominem. It smears your otherwise concise argument.
-
Omorlo,
Hawayu my broda,
My abstention too is not based on scriptures.
Read 1 Timothy 3:8 and tell me. If the wine they was taking in first century would not get them drunk, why was they advised/commanded on moderation?
What Nuff Sed is doing is concluding wine is poisonous and then going on a hapless fishing expedition in the scriptures to justify it. While this may appear well motivated, an intelligent bible student would easily see her dishonesty, outright lies and ignorance and as such not take her seriously.
Baraka my broda...tuma sadaka Sasa kwa 073396****
Very interesting. My abstention is not based on religion but clearly I could learn from this.
Vooke wacha sneaky ad hominem. It smears your otherwise concise argument.
-
Voke your addiction to ad hominem is entering the acute stage. The Bible is written in human language and the unfortunate bit is that one can interpret it to say almost anything. In this case, persons committed to alcohol imbibery abuse texts to justify addictions. And you accuse me of formed opinions?
1 Timothy 3:8 (KJ21) | In Context | Whole Chapter
8 Likewise must the deacons be serious, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy for filthy lucre,
Bible Gateway allows you to read in context. For example, what do other Bible verses and chapters say about alcohol/fermented wine? Do they praise or condemn it? But we don't even have to go that far. In that same verse, Paul tells Timothy that deacons should "not [be] greedy for filthy lucre." To come to your conclusion about wine from that same verse, one must also say deacons with moderate greed will breeze their way into heaven. I hope you see the dishonesty in that interpretation.
http://www.whiteestate.org/books/mh/mh27.html
Liquor Traffic and Prohibition
"Woe unto him that buildeth his house by unrighteousness, and his chambers by wrong; . . . that saith, I will build me a wide house and large chambers, and cutteth him out windows; and it is ceiled with cedar, and painted with vermilion. Shalt thou reign, because thou closest thyself in cedar? . . . Thine eyes and thine heart are not but for thy covetousness, and for to shed innocent blood, and for oppression, and for violence, to do it." Jeremiah 22:13-17.
The Work of the Liquor Seller
This scripture pictures the work of those who manufacture and who sell intoxicating liquor. Their business means robbery. For the money they receive, no equivalent is returned. Every dollar they add to their gains has brought a curse to the spender.
With a liberal hand, God has bestowed His blessings upon men. If His gifts were wisely used, how little the world would know of poverty or distress! It is the wickedness of men that turns His blessings into a curse. It is through the greed of gain and the lust of appetite that the grains and fruits given for our sustenance are converted into poisons that bring misery and ruin.
Page 338
Every year millions upon millions of gallons of intoxicating liquors are consumed. Millions upon millions of dollars are spent in buying wretchedness, poverty, disease, degradation, lust, crime, and death. For the sake of gain, the liquor seller deals out to his victims that which corrupts and destroys mind and body. He entails on the drunkard's family poverty and wretchedness.
When his victim is dead, the rum seller's exactions do not cease. He robs the widow and brings children to beggary. He does not hesitate to take the very necessaries of life from the destitute family, to pay the drink bill of the husband and father. The cries of the suffering children, the tears of the agonized mother, serve only to exasperate him. What is it to him if these suffering ones starve? What is it to him if they, too, are driven to degradation and ruin? He grows rich on the pittances of those whom he is leading to perdition.
-
Nuff Sed
You have many hats but none of that qualifies you to teach Holy Spirit inspiration.
Given the trillions wasted in alcohol, why couldn't He ban imbibing outrightly? You think He should have taken grammar lessons from EGW before inspiring Paul?
Voke your addiction to ad hominem is entering the acute stage. The Bible is written in human language and the unfortunate bit is that one can interpret it to say almost anything. In this case, persons committed to alcohol imbibery abuse texts to justify addictions. And you accuse me of formed opinions?
1 Timothy 3:8 (KJ21) | In Context | Whole Chapter
8 Likewise must the deacons be serious, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy for filthy lucre,[/b]
Bible Gateway allows you to read in context. For example, what do other Bible verses and chapters say about alcohol/fermented wine? Do they praise or condemn it? But we don't even have to go that far. In that same verse, Paul tells Timothy that deacons should "not [be] greedy for filthy lucre." To come to your conclusion about wine from that same verse, one must also say deacons with moderate greed will breeze their way into heaven. I hope you see the dishonesty in that interpretation.
http://www.whiteestate.org/books/mh/mh27.html
Liquor Traffic and Prohibition
"Woe unto him that buildeth his house by unrighteousness, and his chambers by wrong; . . . that saith, I will build me a wide house and large chambers, and cutteth him out windows; and it is ceiled with cedar, and painted with vermilion. Shalt thou reign, because thou closest thyself in cedar? . . . Thine eyes and thine heart are not but for thy covetousness, and for to shed innocent blood, and for oppression, and for violence, to do it." Jeremiah 22:13-17.
The Work of the Liquor Seller
This scripture pictures the work of those who manufacture and who sell intoxicating liquor. Their business means robbery. For the money they receive, no equivalent is returned. Every dollar they add to their gains has brought a curse to the spender.
With a liberal hand, God has bestowed His blessings upon men. If His gifts were wisely used, how little the world would know of poverty or distress! It is the wickedness of men that turns His blessings into a curse. It is through the greed of gain and the lust of appetite that the grains and fruits given for our sustenance are converted into poisons that bring misery and ruin.
Page 338
Every year millions upon millions of gallons of intoxicating liquors are consumed. Millions upon millions of dollars are spent in buying wretchedness, poverty, disease, degradation, lust, crime, and death. For the sake of gain, the liquor seller deals out to his victims that which corrupts and destroys mind and body. He entails on the drunkard's family poverty and wretchedness.
When his victim is dead, the rum seller's exactions do not cease. He robs the widow and brings children to beggary. He does not hesitate to take the very necessaries of life from the destitute family, to pay the drink bill of the husband and father. The cries of the suffering children, the tears of the agonized mother, serve only to exasperate him. What is it to him if these suffering ones starve? What is it to him if they, too, are driven to degradation and ruin? He grows rich on the pittances of those whom he is leading to perdition.
-
:) :) DB has failed to produce scriptures to support the points she is making. When the bible speaks of wine...it means just that, not wine juice, just wine as in alcoholic beverage. I have no problem indulging in a glass of wine every now and then and you can’t convince me otherwise. But while you continue to obfuscate issues, I couldn’t help to see that you r arguments have taken a different angle............ concerning those who sell wine...vooke what do you think about that part?
The Work of the Liquor Seller
This scripture pictures the work of those who manufacture and who sell intoxicating liquor. Their business means robbery
-
:) :) DB has failed to produce scriptures to support the points she is making. When the bible speaks of wine...it means just that, not wine juice, just wine as in alcoholic beverage. I have no problem indulging in a glass of wine every now and then and you can’t convince me otherwise. But while you continue to obfuscate issues, I couldn’t help to see that you r arguments have taken a different angle............ concerning those who sell wine...vooke what do you think about that part?
When Jesus turned water into wine, this is what he had to say to the banquet master:
“Everyone brings out the choice wine first and then the cheaper wine after the guests have had too much to drink; but you have saved the best till now.”
What would it mean for someone to have too much to drink of grape-juice of any other non-alcoholic drinks? On the other hand, anyone who regularly drinks wine knows that once a person is nicely loaded on good wine, which will be remembered, he or she will hardly notice when served with wine of a lesser quality. (This is a fact I find useful when having dinner parties.)
Another example when he said that:
"Neither do people pour new wine into old wineskins. If they do, the skins will burst; the wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined. No, they pour new wine into new wineskins, and both are preserved.”
That---the "bursting"---would happen because of fermentation.
-
Thirdly, the big question of moderation. Two problems here. What is moderate consumption? One man's moderation is another's poison (the author himself admits he cannot stomach any alcohol). What is moderation today quickly becomes full-fledged alcoholism in no time. Second problem of moderation is to bring in the curse of relativity and humanism. In simple terms, the decision to account one thing as truth or deception, good and evil no longer lies with God's word but one's own decision or feelings (if it feels right, go ahead with it).
There are no problems.
First, it would be wrong to assume that "moderation" means the same thing for everybody. Whether it is water, healthy fruit, exercise, ..., what is a good amount will vary according to the individual. In the case of alcohol, what is "acceptable" will vary according to age, body weight, behaviour after drinking, etc. It is up to each person to consider their individual factors and determine (perhaps with medical advice) what is appropriate for them. The fact that "moderate" varies according to individual cannot possibly be a sustainable argument against moderation.
Second, the "curse of relativity and humanism ... the decision to account one thing as truth or deception, good and evil ..." have little to do with what constitutes a "moderate" amount of alcohol. Unless, of course, one imbibes more than they can handle, and it encourages them to misbehave or even commit evil.
-
My quarrel is that he permits one species of primate, a bonobo, to partake in all the hedonistic joys with little worry for eternal damnation. Homo sapiens is not even allowed to look in some cases.
-
mya88,
vooke is a strict teetotaler and I believe on average alcohol is a snare. We have perfected distillation and can produce 40% alcoholic beverages whereas the Biblical times never went beyond 10%. So for all my posts, a Christian should steer clear of this thing either imbibing or selling it.
When I was learning driving, my bro used to be so harsh on me, told me to be wary and felt like I was about to cause an accident. I told him I can't hit nothing and he was always like, 'NOBODY intends to hit nothing nor cause an accident but they do happen all the time'.
Nobody sets out to be an alcoholic but I have observed over and over that the moderate drinkers quickly descending into full-blown alcoholism especially when they hit a rough patch. For this, I'd rather you steer clear. I have seen alcoholics, real prisoners of the bottle turning to Christ and I can't imagine prescribing 'moderation'.
There are some arguments that I can only pray you follow your conscience and aks God for guidance. Once, a church I used to fellowship received several millions from EABL Foundation towards feeding the starving in Taita Taveta area. That was retained earnings from frothy beverages saving lives
Sorry for lengthy insha
:) :) DB has failed to produce scriptures to support the points she is making. When the bible speaks of wine...it means just that, not wine juice, just wine as in alcoholic beverage. I have no problem indulging in a glass of wine every now and then and you can’t convince me otherwise. But while you continue to obfuscate issues, I couldn’t help to see that you r arguments have taken a different angle............ concerning those who sell wine...vooke what do you think about that part?
The Work of the Liquor Seller
This scripture pictures the work of those who manufacture and who sell intoxicating liquor. Their business means robbery
-
Funny negro
My quarrel is that he permits one species of primate, a bonobo, to partake in all the hedonistic joys with little worry for eternal damnation. Homo sapiens is not even allowed to look in some cases.
-
MOON Ki,
I think you are a lawyer or at least you have a background in Law. You know too well that court battles have been won/lost over definitions. Even Clinton when cornered with Lewinsky aksd for a definition of sex.
That's what Nuff Sed is all about here. Because it is IMPOSSIBLE to define 'moderation' say with lab precision, then 'drinking with moderation' is impossible. What is lost to her in this case is that this warning or guideline was an actual commandment from God and unless we accuse Him of ambiguity, we should just accept it
Is there a better time to BAN alcohol than when writing about it?
Now, substitute 'moderation' with GLUTTONY. There is no proper and precise definition of gluttony yet just about everyone knows who is a glutton and who aint. And we all eat
Finally, would Paul prescribe 'moderation' in drinking fruit juice? Why, he feared the minister would take several bathroom breaks during the service?
Thirdly, the big question of moderation. Two problems here. What is moderate consumption? One man's moderation is another's poison (the author himself admits he cannot stomach any alcohol). What is moderation today quickly becomes full-fledged alcoholism in no time. Second problem of moderation is to bring in the curse of relativity and humanism. In simple terms, the decision to account one thing as truth or deception, good and evil no longer lies with God's word but one's own decision or feelings (if it feels right, go ahead with it).
There are no problems.
First, it would be wrong to assume that "moderation" means the same thing for everybody. Whether it is water, healthy fruit, exercise, ..., what is a good amount will vary according to the individual. In the case of alcohol, what is "acceptable" will vary according to age, body weight, behaviour after drinking, etc. It is up to each person to consider their individual factors and determine (perhaps with medical advice) what is appropriate for them. The fact that "moderate" varies according to individual cannot possibly be a sustainable argument against moderation.
Second, the "curse of relativity and humanism ... the decision to account one thing as truth or deception, good and evil ..." have little to do with what constitutes a "moderate" amount of alcohol. Unless, of course, one imbibes more than they can handle, and it encourages them to misbehave or even commit evil.
-
It is wrong for 'Christians' to lie or engage on dishonesty in order to support 'Christian values'.
They do a great disservice to the very God they claim to serve, no different from those who killed the apostles thinking they was doing God a favor.
:) :) DB has failed to produce scriptures to support the points she is making. When the bible speaks of wine...it means just that, not wine juice, just wine as in alcoholic beverage. I have no problem indulging in a glass of wine every now and then and you can’t convince me otherwise. But while you continue to obfuscate issues, I couldn’t help to see that you r arguments have taken a different angle............ concerning those who sell wine...vooke what do you think about that part?
When Jesus turned water into wine, this is what he had to say to the banquet master:
“Everyone brings out the choice wine first and then the cheaper wine after the guests have had too much to drink; but you have saved the best till now.”
What would it mean for someone to have too much to drink of grape-juice of any other non-alcoholic drinks? On the other hand, anyone who regularly drinks wine knows that once a person is nicely loaded on good wine, which will be remembered, he or she will hardly notice when served with wine of a lesser quality. (This is a fact I find useful when having dinner parties.)
Another example when he said that:
"Neither do people pour new wine into old wineskins. If they do, the skins will burst; the wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined. No, they pour new wine into new wineskins, and both are preserved.”
That---the "bursting"---would happen because of fermentation.
-
Why is Voke's interpretation of I Timothy 3:8 faulty?
Voke quoted a verse in I Timothy 3 about drinking in moderation in the qualification of elders and deacons (Paul says they should not be "given to much wine"). I have shown that the textual interpretation renders it non-supportive of drinking because it also talks about greed. An honest interpretation would mean greed in moderation is ok for deacons and elders. Look back at the posts and see how he responds to that.
An honest interpretation of I Timothy 3 would consider Numbers 6 which uses the same language (an adjective describing the strength or quantity of liquor).
Numbers 6:3
He shall separate himself from wine and strong drink, and shall drink no vinegar of wine, or vinegar of strong drink, neither shall he drink any liquor of grapes, nor eat moist grapes, or dried.
I Tim 3:8
8 Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre;
Consider also I Tim 3:
1 This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
and
I Tim 3:
10 And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless.
11 Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things.
Notice that Nazirites drank no wine despite the Bible saying they should drink no strong drink in Numbers 6. Again, Paul calls elders, deacons and their wives to be sober, not to moderate drinking. This means the interpretation of I Timothy that forces in "moderation" as license for drinking is nugatory.
-
Thirdly, the big question of moderation. Two problems here. What is moderate consumption? One man's moderation is another's poison (the author himself admits he cannot stomach any alcohol). What is moderation today quickly becomes full-fledged alcoholism in no time. Second problem of moderation is to bring in the curse of relativity and humanism. In simple terms, the decision to account one thing as truth or deception, good and evil no longer lies with God's word but one's own decision or feelings (if it feels right, go ahead with it).
There are no problems.
First, it would be wrong to assume that "moderation" means the same thing for everybody. Whether it is water, healthy fruit, exercise, ..., what is a good amount will vary according to the individual. In the case of alcohol, what is "acceptable" will vary according to age, body weight, behaviour after drinking, etc. It is up to each person to consider their individual factors and determine (perhaps with medical advice) what is appropriate for them. The fact that "moderate" varies according to individual cannot possibly be a sustainable argument against moderation.
Second, the "curse of relativity and humanism ... the decision to account one thing as truth or deception, good and evil ..." have little to do with what constitutes a "moderate" amount of alcohol. Unless, of course, one imbibes more than they can handle, and it encourages them to misbehave or even commit evil.
The problem is that moderation here is being used as a license to drink. Voke for example uses the verse about deacons in Timothy to make that point. But that becomes problematic right there. The same verse and sentence in which he forces "moderation" also talks about greed. So if he applies moderation to drinking he must also apply it to greed. The result is that if drinking is accepted in moderation, greed must also be accepted in that same context, rendering the selective application highly suspect.
Still on moderation, since it is so difficult to define, and because in practice we can see moderation leading to excess over and over, Paul's counsel cannot be taken as an endorsement of drinking. The liquor seller has taken up the "moderation" slogan for a good reason, and it is not because it makes moderate drinkers stay moderate.
-
:) :) DB has failed to produce scriptures to support the points she is making. When the bible speaks of wine...it means just that, not wine juice, just wine as in alcoholic beverage. I have no problem indulging in a glass of wine every now and then and you can’t convince me otherwise. But while you continue to obfuscate issues, I couldn’t help to see that you r arguments have taken a different angle............ concerning those who sell wine...vooke what do you think about that part?
When Jesus turned water into wine, this is what he had to say to the banquet master:
“Everyone brings out the choice wine first and then the cheaper wine after the guests have had too much to drink; but you have saved the best till now.”
What would it mean for someone to have too much to drink of grape-juice of any other non-alcoholic drinks? On the other hand, anyone who regularly drinks wine knows that once a person is nicely loaded on good wine, which will be remembered, he or she will hardly notice when served with wine of a lesser quality. (This is a fact I find useful when having dinner parties.)
Another example when he said that:
"Neither do people pour new wine into old wineskins. If they do, the skins will burst; the wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined. No, they pour new wine into new wineskins, and both are preserved.”
That---the "bursting"---would happen because of fermentation.
This verse does not help the drinking crusade. Anything produced by man can be described in relative terms. People who used Treetop used to say it was better than Quencher. Does that comparison mean the "orange juice" sold by those companies is alcoholic? Consider:
Mark 14
23 And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them: and they all drank of it.
24 And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.
25 Verily I say unto you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, until that day that I drink it new in the kingdom of God.
This description of the cup at the Lord's supper gives meaning to drink at the holy communion. It is described as "fruit of the vine" showing it a grape juice rather than fermented drink. Notice too that Jesus describes a future time of drinking in heaven. The reference to wine in Numbers 6 also talks about vinegar, which is also a product of fermentation. Jesus was a Nazirite and rejected vinegar at the cross (Matt 27:34; Mk 15:23 "And they gave him to drink wine mingled with myrrh: but he received it not."), a time when he was in pain and obviously thirsty. If it was ok to drink, why did he reject vinegar?
We need a whole Bible study on fermentation, yeast and sin to give this topic the depth it deserves. For that, I thank Voke for bringing this up.
-
My quarrel is that he permits one species of primate, a bonobo, to partake in all the hedonistic joys with little worry for eternal damnation. Homo sapiens is not even allowed to look in some cases.
The reason is that in God's order of creation, man was created in His image and given dominion over other creatures on earth. Your quarrel with this arrangement is understandable if argued from the perspective of evolution which holds that species get progressively better. A bonobo is lower than man in God's order so he can enjoy drinking amarula. Not so with man.
An aside. The argument of species getting better is problematic if you consider the principle of entropy (inevitable, steady deterioration). How do humans become better than the original stock (bonobo)? Hopefully not through drinking in moderation.
-
mya88,
vooke is a strict teetotaler and I believe on average alcohol is a snare. We have perfected distillation and can produce 40% alcoholic beverages whereas the Biblical times never went beyond 10%. So for all my posts, a Christian should steer clear of this thing either imbibing or selling it.
When I was learning driving, my bro used to be so harsh on me, told me to be wary and felt like I was about to cause an accident. I told him I can't hit nothing and he was always like, 'NOBODY intends to hit nothing nor cause an accident but they do happen all the time'.
Nobody sets out to be an alcoholic but I have observed over and over that the moderate drinkers quickly descending into full-blown alcoholism especially when they hit a rough patch. For this, I'd rather you steer clear. I have seen alcoholics, real prisoners of the bottle turning to Christ and I can't imagine prescribing 'moderation'.
There are some arguments that I can only pray you follow your conscience and aks God for guidance. Once, a church I used to fellowship received several millions from EABL Foundation towards feeding the starving in Taita Taveta area. That was retained earnings from frothy beverages saving lives
Sorry for lengthy insha
:) :) DB has failed to produce scriptures to support the points she is making. When the bible speaks of wine...it means just that, not wine juice, just wine as in alcoholic beverage. I have no problem indulging in a glass of wine every now and then and you can’t convince me otherwise. But while you continue to obfuscate issues, I couldn’t help to see that you r arguments have taken a different angle............ concerning those who sell wine...vooke what do you think about that part?
The Work of the Liquor Seller
This scripture pictures the work of those who manufacture and who sell intoxicating liquor. Their business means robbery
Vooke I hear you and don’t worry about me. As a rule of thumb I advise all who don’t drink to steer clear of the stuff and those who do to quit if they can or at least be aware of that slippery slope. My intention is certainly not to promote drinking of any sorts. Even on the rare occasion that I indulge in my glass of wine (I prefer social drinker than moderation), at the back of my mind am aware of the fine line. I have seen many go under and to me that is a stronger teaching point than telling people it’s forbidden or it’s a sin. Like you said, many started as ‘moderate’ drinkers at some point. What I find unsettling and cannot reconcile with my conscience is profiting from such endeavors knowing well it can, has, and continues to send many to their early grave. My question is or was, would you take donations from such companies that sell liquor to do the work of God knowing what alcohol has done to many; in the name of “saving lives?” And if so, don’t you find it disingenuous.
-
My quarrel is that he permits one species of primate, a bonobo, to partake in all the hedonistic joys with little worry for eternal damnation. Homo sapiens is not even allowed to look in some cases.
Hahahe, Termi reason is because the homo sapien is of a higher mind than the bonobo.
-
When Jesus turned water into wine, this is what he had to say to the banquet master:
“Everyone brings out the choice wine first and then the cheaper wine after the guests have had too much to drink; but you have saved the best till now.”
What would it mean for someone to have too much to drink of grape-juice of any other non-alcoholic drinks?
I think, DB would call this gluttony lol
On the other hand, anyone who regularly drinks wine knows that once a person is nicely loaded on good wine, which will be remembered, he or she will hardly notice when served with wine of a lesser quality. (This is a fact I find useful when having dinner parties.)
Another example when he said that:
"Neither do people pour new wine into old wineskins. If they do, the skins will burst; the wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined. No, they pour new wine into new wineskins, and both are preserved.”
That---the "bursting"---would happen because of fermentation
MK, I see how you treat your guests. Anytime there is talk of too much to drink, nothing good really comes out of that.
-
Nuff Sed,
This is the point. Who would tell you not to be given to MUCH of something that's forbidden?
Can you imagine Paul saying that you should not be given to MUCH adultery?
When Paul/scriptures issues an injunction on ANYTHING, he is mighty clear
'Flee from fornication'- 1 Cor 6:18, 'flee from idolatry'- 10:14, 'flee youthful lust'- 1 Tim 2:22
It is a shame when atheists school a 'Christian' on logic and hermeneutics and biblical studies
You can read and cite the entire scriptures chasing a shadow called 'context' but you can't take away from Paul's clear instructions, NOT GIVEN TO MUCH WINE
Assignment for the rest of your life; do a word study of the word 'MUCH'
Why is Voke's interpretation of I Timothy 3:8 faulty?
Voke quoted a verse in I Timothy 3 about drinking in moderation in the qualification of elders and deacons (Paul says they should not be "given to much wine"). I have shown that the textual interpretation renders it non-supportive of drinking because it also talks about greed. An honest interpretation would mean greed in moderation is ok for deacons and elders. Look back at the posts and see how he responds to that.
An honest interpretation of I Timothy 3 would consider Numbers 6 which uses the same language (an adjective describing the strength or quantity of liquor).
Numbers 6:3
He shall separate himself from wine and strong drink, and shall drink no vinegar of wine, or vinegar of strong drink, neither shall he drink any liquor of grapes, nor eat moist grapes, or dried.
I Tim 3:8
8 Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre;
Consider also I Tim 3:
1 This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
and
I Tim 3:
10 And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless.
11 Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things.
Notice that Nazirites drank no wine despite the Bible saying they should drink no strong drink in Numbers 6. Again, Paul calls elders, deacons and their wives to be sober, not to moderate drinking. This means the interpretation of I Timothy that forces in "moderation" as license for drinking is nugatory.
-
The problem is your warped thinking that's shaped by a dead mad and false prophet.
Who needs a LICENSE to drink when it is not forbidden in the first place?
Moderation is not a license to drink, it is instruction to curb/avoid ABUSE and we all know that the best cure for ABUSE is PROPER USE
Wine drinking Moderation is as a licence to drink as much as warnings against gluttony ( eating moderation) are a license to eat!
Thirdly, the big question of moderation. Two problems here. What is moderate consumption? One man's moderation is another's poison (the author himself admits he cannot stomach any alcohol). What is moderation today quickly becomes full-fledged alcoholism in no time. Second problem of moderation is to bring in the curse of relativity and humanism. In simple terms, the decision to account one thing as truth or deception, good and evil no longer lies with God's word but one's own decision or feelings (if it feels right, go ahead with it).
There are no problems.
First, it would be wrong to assume that "moderation" means the same thing for everybody. Whether it is water, healthy fruit, exercise, ..., what is a good amount will vary according to the individual. In the case of alcohol, what is "acceptable" will vary according to age, body weight, behaviour after drinking, etc. It is up to each person to consider their individual factors and determine (perhaps with medical advice) what is appropriate for them. The fact that "moderate" varies according to individual cannot possibly be a sustainable argument against moderation.
Second, the "curse of relativity and humanism ... the decision to account one thing as truth or deception, good and evil ..." have little to do with what constitutes a "moderate" amount of alcohol. Unless, of course, one imbibes more than they can handle, and it encourages them to misbehave or even commit evil.
The problem is that moderation here is being used as a license to drink. Voke for example uses the verse about deacons in Timothy to make that point. But that becomes problematic right there. The same verse and sentence in which he forces "moderation" also talks about greed. So if he applies moderation to drinking he must also apply it to greed. The result is that if drinking is accepted in moderation, greed must also be accepted in that same context, rendering the selective application highly suspect.
Still on moderation, since it is so difficult to define, and because in practice we can see moderation leading to excess over and over, Paul's counsel cannot be taken as an endorsement of drinking. The liquor seller has taken up the "moderation" slogan for a good reason, and it is not because it makes moderate drinkers stay moderate.
-
Nuff Sed,
There is no need for MOON Ki repeating what is as clear as daylight. Go back and re-read the article and share with us points of contention.
Jesus was not a Nazirite, John the Baptist was.
A Nazirite vow entailed keeping off alcohol or even grape juice and not shaving for a season. We see Paul taking this vow in Acts. For John the Baptist, it. Was a lifetime vow.
Jesus was a Nazarene (dude hailing from Nazareth)
Now that you threw Nazirite vow at Moon Ki, let's think it through; why would the vow entail ABSTINENCE from an already banned substance? Do you see how you insult God's Wisdom inorder to support your schizo prophetess?
:) :) DB has failed to produce scriptures to support the points she is making. When the bible speaks of wine...it means just that, not wine juice, just wine as in alcoholic beverage. I have no problem indulging in a glass of wine every now and then and you can’t convince me otherwise. But while you continue to obfuscate issues, I couldn’t help to see that you r arguments have taken a different angle............ concerning those who sell wine...vooke what do you think about that part?
When Jesus turned water into wine, this is what he had to say to the banquet master:
“Everyone brings out the choice wine first and then the cheaper wine after the guests have had too much to drink; but you have saved the best till now.”
What would it mean for someone to have too much to drink of grape-juice of any other non-alcoholic drinks? On the other hand, anyone who regularly drinks wine knows that once a person is nicely loaded on good wine, which will be remembered, he or she will hardly notice when served with wine of a lesser quality. (This is a fact I find useful when having dinner parties.)
Another example when he said that:
"Neither do people pour new wine into old wineskins. If they do, the skins will burst; the wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined. No, they pour new wine into new wineskins, and both are preserved.”
That---the "bursting"---would happen because of fermentation.
This verse does not help the drinking crusade. Anything produced by man can be described in relative terms. People who used Treetop used to say it was better than Quencher. Does that comparison mean the "orange juice" sold by those companies is alcoholic? Consider:
Mark 14
23 And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them: and they all drank of it.
24 And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.
25 Verily I say unto you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, until that day that I drink it new in the kingdom of God.
This description of the cup at the Lord's supper gives meaning to drink at the holy communion. It is described as "fruit of the vine" showing it a grape juice rather than fermented drink. Notice too that Jesus describes a future time of drinking in heaven. The reference to wine in Numbers 6 also talks about vinegar, which is also a product of fermentation. Jesus was a Nazirite and rejected vinegar at the cross (Matt 27:34; Mk 15:23 "And they gave him to drink wine mingled with myrrh: but he received it not."), a time when he was in pain and obviously thirsty. If it was ok to drink, why did he reject vinegar?
We need a whole Bible study on fermentation, yeast and sin to give this topic the depth it deserves. For that, I thank Voke for bringing this up.
-
The Nazirite Vow
Numbers 6:1-10English Standard Version (ESV)
The Nazirite Vow
6 And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 2 “Speak to the people of Israel and say to them, When either a man or a woman makes a special vow, the vow of a Nazirite,[a] to separate himself to the Lord, 3 he shall separate himself from wine and strong drink. 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. 4 All the days of his separation he shall eat nothing that is produced by the grapevine, not even the seeds or the skins.
5 “All the days of his vow of separation, no razor shall touch his head. Until the time is completed for which he separates himself to the Lord, he shall be holy. He shall let the locks of hair of his head grow long.