Wine, Alcohol, and the Bible

[vooke]

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.

[mya88]

The Work of the Liquor Seller
This scripture pictures the work of those who manufacture and who sell intoxicating liquor. Their business means robbery

[MOON Ki]

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

That---the "bursting"---would happen because of fermentation.

[MOON Ki]

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.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

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.

[vooke]

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

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]

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.

[vooke]

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.

[vooke]

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.

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

That---the "bursting"---would happen because of fermentation.

[GeeMail]

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.

[GeeMail]

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.

[GeeMail]

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

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.

[GeeMail]

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]

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

The Work of the Liquor Seller
This scripture pictures the work of those who manufacture and who sell intoxicating liquor. Their business means robbery

[mya88]

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.

[mya88]

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 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:

"

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.

[vooke]

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.

[vooke]

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.

[vooke]

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?

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

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.

[vooke]

The Nazirite Vow