Wine, Alcohol, and the Bible

[vooke]

• Tweet

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

[GeeMail]

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.

[vooke]

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

[GeeMail]

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?

[vooke]

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?

[GeeMail]

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)

[vooke]

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

[vooke]

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)

[GeeMail]

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.

[vooke]

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.

[GeeMail]

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)

[vooke]

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?



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)

[GeeMail]

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.

[vooke]

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

[GeeMail]

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?

[vooke]

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?



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?

[GeeMail]

http://absg.adventist.org/2015/1Q/TE/PDFs/ETQ115_09.pdf

What We Put in Our Mouths: The Alcohol QuestionThink 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?

[Omollo]

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. 

[vooke]

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. 

[GeeMail]

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.