Scripture Manipulation...

[Sophia7]

I have already given them (over 2 hours before your post) in post 106.

That is because you are going by an English translation. Read Dr. Bacchiocchi's book Wine in the Bible, pages 225-34. On page 227 he notes that Robert Teachout found that whenever you see "wine" (yayin) and "strong drink" (shekar) together, they constitute a henidays--expressing the same thing in different words. In this case, it means "satisfying date (or honey) drink." On page 228, Teachout notes also that this is to be drunk "before the Lord"--this would require one to be sober, not drunk.

Yes, you posted the verses, but you completely missed the point of why I reposted them. Look at this verse, which I have seen you quote frequently:

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Geneva]Pro 20:1 Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging: and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise.[/FONT]
​

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Geneva]This text in Hebrew uses the terms yayin and shekar together (as do almost all of the other texts that I posted), clearly referencing an intoxicating beverage, which you yourself have acknowledged by citing it as evidence for a biblical prohibition of all alcohol consumption. Thus, Bacchiocchi's interpretation is incorrect. The two words together may express the same idea, but all of the other texts that I cited that use them together clearly refer to fermented drink, so there is no contextual or linguistic justification to claim that they don't in Deut. 14:26:
[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Geneva]And thou shalt bestow that money for whatsoever, thy soul lusteth after, for oxen, or for sheep, or for wine, or for strong drink, or for whatsoever, thy soul desireth: and thou shalt eat there before the LORD thy God, and thou shalt rejoice, thou, and thine household.[/FONT]​

 

[djconklin]

Yes, you posted the verses, but you completely missed the point of why I reposted them.

That's quite insulting. I am fully able to read and comprehend.

Thus, Bacchiocchi's interpretation is incorrect.

It wasn't Bacchiocchi's interpretation. He simply relayed what Robert Teachout found in working on his dissertation. He found that when the two words for wine and strong drink are used together (as in "wine or strong drink" or "wine and strong drink") then it is a henidays expressing the same thing twice. Obviously in Proverbs 20:1 the two words are not being used as a henidays as they are in Deut. 14:26. When they two words are used together they refer to a "sweet drink." When the two words are used seperately they refer to a alcoholic beverage. Now, if you look at the verses again, you'll find that when the two are used separately their use is condemned.
---
Is it logical for the same God to say it's okay for the parishoners to get drunk, but the priests could be killed if they did (Lev. 10:9)? See Bacchiocchi's book Wine in the Bible, page 228, 1st paragraph.

 

[Sophia7]

It wasn't Bacchiocchi's interpretation. He simply relayed what Robert Teachout found in working on his dissertation. He found that when the two words for wine and strong drink are used together (as in "wine or strong drink" or "wine and strong drink") then it is a henidays expressing the same thing twice. Obviously in Proverbs 20:1 the two words are not being used as a henidays as they are in Deut. 14:26. When they two words are used together they refer to a "sweet drink." When the two words are used seperately they refer to a alcoholic beverage. Now, if you look at the verses again, you'll find that when the two are used separately their use is condemned.

It is simply not true that whenever these two words are used together, they refer to a non-fermented beverage. Look at these texts again:

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Geneva]Deut 29:6 Ye have not eaten bread, neither have ye drunk wine or strong drink: that ye might know that I am the LORD your God.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Geneva]Jud 13:14 She may not eat of any thing that cometh of the vine, neither let her drink wine or strong drink, nor eat any unclean thing: all that I commanded her let her observe.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Geneva]Mic 2:11 If a man walking in the spirit and falsehood do lie, saying, I will prophesy unto thee of wine and of strong drink; he shall even be the prophet of this people.[/FONT]
​

The two are used together in all of these, "as in 'wine or strong drink' or 'wine and strong drink,'" and they all clearly refer to fermented drink.

Is it logical for the same God to say it's okay for the parishoners to get drunk, but the priests could be killed if they did (Lev. 10:9)? See Bacchiocchi's book Wine in the Bible, page 228, 1st paragraph.

No one is alleging that God says it's okay for people to get drunk in Deut. 14, only that all consumption of fermented beverages was not forbidden in the Bible. Some people were prohibited from drinking (like priests), and some were prohibited from consuming anything that came from a grapevine, including unfermented grape juice (Nazirites). Is that logical? Also, the book of Proverbs counsels kings not to drink but says that those of heavy hearts should be given strong drink to make them forget their poverty and their misery:

Pro 31:4 It is not for kings, O Lemuel, it is not for kings to drink wine; nor for princes strong drink:
Pro 31:5 Lest they drink, and forget the law, and pervert the judgment of any of the afflicted.
Pro 31:6 Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish, and wine unto those that be of heavy hearts.
Pro 31:7 Let him drink, and forget his poverty, and remember his misery no more.
​

Is that logical?

 

[djconklin]

Deut 29:6 Ye have not eaten bread, neither have ye drunk wine or strong drink: that ye might know that I am the LORD your God.

1) The conclusion is based on lexical and historical concerns; not presuppositions.
2) In this particular case, where did the Jews get the ingredients to make wine and "strong drink"?
3) Dr. B. points out in his book (page 229) that the word "strong" doesn't exist in the Hebrew in those texts AND "the processing of distilling alcohol did not develop until around A.D. 500. So, what you do is get out the black magic marker, find all the texts that say "strong drink" and cross off the word "strong." Now re-read the texts.
4) Do you really believe that they didn't have any bread in the 40 years they wandered in the wilderness? This leads to the next point:
5) A better way to read that text is to say that they didn't live "high off the hog" as it were, and yet they ate well (it is continuing the thought expressed in verse 5).

Jud 13:14 She may not eat of any thing that cometh of the vine, neither let her drink wine or strong drink, nor eat any unclean thing: all that I commanded her let her observe.

Note the first part of the verse: not even grapes themselves, much less grape juice! The child is to be brought up in an austere manner. Certainly you aren't trying to say that they denied the child alcoholic wine?

Mic 2:11 If a man walking in the spirit and falsehood do lie, saying, I will prophesy unto thee of wine and of strong drink; he shall even be the prophet of this people.

Ever heard of false prophets preaching sweet things to people's itchy ears?

The two are used together in all of these, "as in 'wine or strong drink' or 'wine and strong drink,'" and they all clearly refer to fermented drink.

What you are saying is that you know more than the guy who wrote a dissertation on the subject. Can we please see you bibliography on the suibject? How many years of training in Hebrew and other Semitic languages do you have under your belt? I have something and I wouldn't even try to lecture the pro in the field as to which way is up.

Originally Posted by djconklin
Is it logical for the same God to say it's okay for the parishoners to get drunk, but the priests could be killed if they did (Lev. 10:9)? See Bacchiocchi's book Wine in the Bible, page 228, 1st paragraph.

No one is alleging that God says it's okay for people to get drunk in Deut. 14.

Good, no falling-down drunk. How drunk can you get since even one glass of wine affects your decision-making? Maybe they only get one shot glass worth? What's the use of even drinking it? And does it really make sense that they could drink alcoholic beverages when God said in Lev. 10:9 that if the priests drink they'll get killed? It is illogical and inconsistent with the whole.

 

[JonMiller]

How much one drink of wine affects you depends on how much you have eaten, the size of you, your metabolism, your tolerance (which has genetic factors), all sorts of things play a role.

JM

 

[Sophia7]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Geneva]Deut 29:6 Ye have not eaten bread, neither have ye drunk wine or strong drink: that ye might know that I am the LORD your God.[/FONT]

1) The conclusion is based on lexical and historical concerns; not presuppositions.
2) In this particular case, where did the Jews get the ingredients to make wine and "strong drink"?
3) Dr. B. points out in his book (page 229) that the word "strong" doesn't exist in the Hebrew in those texts AND "the processing of distilling alcohol did not develop until around A.D. 500. So, what you do is get out the black magic marker, find all the texts that say "strong drink" and cross off the word "strong." Now re-read the texts.
4) Do you really believe that they didn't have any bread in the 40 years they wandered in the wilderness? This leads to the next point:
5) A better way to read that text is to say that they didn't live "high off the hog" as it were, and yet they ate well (it is continuing the thought expressed in verse 5).

I quoted this text (as well as the others) to show that the terms yayin and shekar are used together in the context of fermented drink, as you/Bacchiocchi/Teachout say they are not in the Bible. If you left out the word strong (although you didn't do so in your previous posts) in English (without substituting another adjective for it) in the texts that render shekar as strong drink, you would then be ignoring their context since they clearly refer to fermented drink (which is why some translations use the term fermented drink). It doesn't matter how strong it was; it was obviously capable of making people drunk if they consumed too much, even if not as hard as today's hard liquor.

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Geneva]Jud 13:14 She may not eat of any thing that cometh of the vine, neither let her drink wine or strong drink, nor eat any unclean thing: all that I commanded her let her observe.[/FONT]

Note the first part of the verse: not even grapes themselves, much less grape juice! The child is to be brought up in an austere manner. Certainly you aren't trying to say that they denied the child alcoholic wine?

See above. I quoted this for the same reason. Yayin and shekar are used together in the context of fermented drink. The point of this text is that Samson's mother was denied anything that came from the grapevine (cf. the Nazirite restrictions in Numbers 6), including both unfermented and fermented wine and other fermented beverages. Samson was a Nazirite, so, yes, he was also denied both alcoholic and nonalcoholic wine.

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Geneva]Mic 2:11 If a man walking in the spirit and falsehood do lie, saying, I will prophesy unto thee of wine and of strong drink; he shall even be the prophet of this people.[/FONT]

Ever heard of false prophets preaching sweet things to people's itchy ears?

See above. It was, once again, quoted for the same reason. Yayin and shekar are used together in the context of fermented drink.

What you are saying is that you know more than the guy who wrote a dissertation on the subject. Can we please see you bibliography on the suibject [sic]? How many years of training in Hebrew and other Semitic languages do you have under your belt? I have something and I wouldn't even try to lecture the pro in the field as to which way is up.

You are making an appeal to authority, despite your self-proclaimed aversion to doing so. Here are a couple of quotes from posts that you made in another thread, "Analysis vs appeals to authority":

On a different forum an appeal to authority was made as if that they had the last word on the subject. I prefer to go by cold, hard concrete facts.

http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=34462942&postcount=1

What I noted was that it was merely an appeal to authoirty [sic]--and you are still doing it. You did not look at the facts, you did not present any evidence. You cannot afford to have anyone look at the evidence--because it does not say what you say it says.

http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=34518694&postcount=11

I don't care how many Ph.D.s or Th.D.s a person has earned or how many dissertations he has written; he can still be wrong. I could just as easily quote scholars who disagree with Bacchiocchi and Teachout, but we can't determine whether a person is right by his credentials. Quoting scholars proves nothing if they and you are ignoring the facts. In this case, the evidence shows that the Bible does not say what you say it says.

Good, no falling-down drunk. How drunk can you get since even one glass of wine affects your decision-making? Maybe they only get one shot glass worth? What's the use of even drinking it? And does it really make sense that they could drink alcoholic beverages when God said in Lev. 10:9 that if the priests drink they'll get killed? It is illogical and inconsistent with the whole.

Priests couldn't drink when they went into the tabernacle, and Nazirites couldn't consume any product of the grapevine or any fermented drink. The very fact that certain groups were required to abstain from fermented beverages shows a distinction between them and others. The Bible does not say that all alcoholic beverages are forbidden for everyone at all times. It does condemn drunkenness. And since, as you say, fermented drink was not as strong in Bible times as it is today, then it would have taken a whole lot more of it to become intoxicated. Drinking a moderate amount would have been less likely to result in drunkenness.

 

[Sophia7]

Read Dr. Bacchiocchi's book Wine in the Bible, pages 225-34. On page 227 he notes that Robert Teachout found that whenever you see "wine" (yayin) and "strong drink" (shekar) together, they constitute a henidays--expressing the same thing in different words.

By the way, the correct term for this is hendiadys.

 

[djconklin]

By the way, the correct term for this is hendiadys.

Correct; spelling it by my pronounciation.

 

[djconklin]

I quoted this text (as well as the others) to show that the terms yayin and shekar are used together in the context of fermented drink, as you/Bacchiocchi/Teachout say they are not in the Bible.

And I showed that they did NOT mean fermented drinks in those texts.

If you left out the word strong (although you didn't do so in your previous posts)

My fault; I didn't see the sign that said I was supposed to officer!

in English (without substituting another adjective for it) in the texts that render shekar as strong drink, you would then be ignoring their context since they clearly refer to fermented drink (which is why some translations use the term fermented drink).

The word "strong" isn't supposed to be used period. That's why I said to "highlight" them in black. If you really, really, really need an adjective then use the word "sweet." The drink had a high sugar content (which alcoholic beverages would not.

Originally Posted by Sophia7
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Geneva]Jud 13:14 She may not eat of any thing that cometh of the vine, neither let her drink wine or strong drink, nor eat any unclean thing: all that I commanded her let her observe.[/FONT]

Note the first part of the verse: not even grapes themselves, much less grape juice! The child is to be brought up in an austere manner. Certainly you aren't trying to say that they denied the child alcoholic wine?

See above. I quoted this for the same reason. Yayin and shekar are used together in the context of fermented drink. The point of this text is that Samson's mother was denied anything that came from the grapevine (cf. the Nazirite restrictions in Numbers 6), including both unfermented and fermented wine and other fermented beverages. Samson was a Nazirite, so, yes, he was also denied both alcoholic and nonalcoholic wine.

You missed the point. The child isn't even supposed to eat grapes. The child isn't even supposed to drink sweet drinks. The emphahsis is on austerity, not alcohol avoidance.

Originally Posted by Sophia7
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Geneva]Mic 2:11 If a man walking in the spirit and falsehood do lie, saying, I will prophesy unto thee of wine and of strong drink; he shall even be the prophet of this people.[/FONT]

Ever heard of false prophets preaching sweet things to people's itchy ears?

See above. It was, once again, quoted for the same reason. Yayin and shekar are used together in the context of fermented drink.

In this case, to be far more obvious than I should have to be the words are being used metaphorically, not literally.

You are making an appeal to authority, despite your self-proclaimed aversion to doing so.

In this case it is not an appeal to authoprity. Here I'm appealing to common sense. They went to specialized school, they took specialized classes, they have studied the subject in depth for years. The odds that we as amateurs would be right, as compared to them, is so small as to be insignificant in comparison.

I don't care how many Ph.D.s or Th.D.s a person has earned or how many dissertations he has written; he can still be wrong.

Highly possible even! But, UNTIL AND UNLESS SOMEONE COMES UP WITH ACTUAL FACTS their findings stand! You don't get to wave your hands and say "They're wrong cause I said so."

I could just as easily quote scholars who disagree with Bacchiocchi and Teachout, but we can't determine whether a person is right by his credentials.

That's why you don't just quote. You look at the erasoning behind what they say. BTW, I can also tell you why can't do the above.

Quoting scholars proves nothing if they and you are ignoring the facts.

Ah, but they are ignoring the facts. In fact, they are paying attention to more facts on the subject than you are. But, then you are a typical SDA in the pew: you have not been trained as to know what to even look for.

In this case, the evidence shows that the Bible does not say what you say it says.

On the contrary. "shekar" is a sugary sweet drink. It is not alcoholic.

Priests couldn't drink when they went into the tabernacle

So, you're saying they could get smashed if they wanted to any other time? Does that really make sense? When you see a lack of consistency (and God is) that's your first clue that you have something wrong.

and Nazirites couldn't consume any product of the grapevine or any fermented drink.

While you are right about fermented drinks you are wrong about "any product of the grapevine":

Numbers 6:20​

And the priest shall wave them for a wave offering before the LORD: this is holy for the priest, with the wave breast and heave shoulder: and after that the Nazarite may drink wine.

The very fact that certain groups were required to abstain from fermented beverages shows a distinction between them and others.

No, it is more than just alcohol. This view is too simplistic and naive. They weren't even supposed to drink the sweet drinks (shekar).

It does condemn drunkenness.

Where?

Drinking a moderate amount would have been less likely to result in drunkenness.

Correct! But, as I have repeatedly noted and you keep skipping over--didn't you read the sign! --even one glass of wine can affect your decision-making skills. So, how much "wine" are you going to "allow" people to drink? Do you go to church smashed, half-smashed, a quarter smashed, an eigthth smashed, what? Are you really loving God with all your heart, mind and strength when you are in that condition? Who/which do you love more: God or the drink?​

 

[djconklin]

On page 231 of his book Wine in the Bible (came out in 1989), Dr. Bacchiocchi writes:

"... like yayin ("wine"), shekar is a genric term that could refer to either to a sweet, unfermented beverage as suggested by Isaiah 24:9, or to a fermented, intoxicating beverage as indicated in most other instances (Prov. 20:12; 31:4-6; Is. 56:12)."

This is inline with the email repsonse he just sent me about some verses I questioned him about:

"Both yayin and shekar can be fermented or unfermented. Shekar can be a sweet or strong beverage, depending on whether it is fermented or unfermented."

 

[djconklin]

Maybe these simple definitions will help DJ

lees (lēz)
pl.n. Sediment settling during fermentation, especially in wine; dregs.

lees [LEEZ] The sediment (dregs) of wine or liquor that occurs during fermentation and aging.

lees[LEEZ] The heavy, coarse sediment that accumulates during fermentation and aging. Lees primarily consists of dead yeast cells and small grape particles that fall to the bottom of the fermentation tank or barrel. In most cases, this sediment is separated from the wine through racking. Sometimes the wine is left in contact with the lees in an attempt to develop more flavor. See also sur lie.

The detritus of fermentation, consisting of dead yeast and fruit debris. See Lees (fermentation);

All of the above found at:
http://www.answers.com/topic/lees

Ron, I know the dictionary definition of lees and dregs (see post #93); why are you counsulting a late reference work rather than the original languages or standrad reference works? Is it because they don't support what you say?

BTW, we're still waiting:

Certainly better then grape juice since grape juice is not preserved as they really did not have a way to preserve it.

Can you please cite your source for this disinformation? Dr. Bacchiocchi already proved otherwise, back in 1989.

And for this one:

You missed this part (I can't imagine why?!?): "Maturation of red wines on the gross lees, however, is a new technique. ..."

 

[djconklin]

From an email I just received:

"I have heard a presentation by Dr. Donald Mahon (“Mah-on&#8221, making a strong case that from ancient times even to the 19th century in some parts of the world, fermented wine was used in extremely restricted amounts as a source of essential phytonutrients which they had no other way to obtain during the winter.

He tells how they would bottle all the juice from the family vineyard and then date each bottle, spaced through the winter, and take it by the tablespoon full or very small glass. They didn’t dare overindulge because they wouldn’t have enough to last till next season. At the same time, the alcohol content was very low, perhaps as low as 1%, just enough to preserve it from spoilage. He argues that we have a hard time appreciating the situation before the nineteenth century; that after 1850 was the first time that large numbers of people in the developed world had an abundance of food to eat.

For most of ancient times, most families had all they could do to get enough food to subsist on. Both meat eating and mildly alcoholic drinks were allowed, because the supplies were not abundant enough for most people to overindulge. There were harmful elements in both, but they were not concerned with longevity—they were concerned with getting through the next winter. No point in worrying about what your arteries will look like at 80, if you starve at 22.

The degenerative diseases that plague Western societies today were almost unknown before 1850, because the vast majority of the population did not have enough wealth to overindulge either on food or wine. Other developments of about the same time are the increasing disease in animals and the distilling of alcohol, so that instead of 1-2% alcohol, wines may have 10% or more, and hard liquors up to 50% alcohol."

 

[LonesomeRanger]

Hi everyone. This thread is looking pretty dry (no pun intended). Hope you don't mind me posting here, not being SDA, or even a Christian (found this thread through search).

I was reading a similar thread last week - http://www.christianforums.com/t5591359 - you all may be interested in. One poster suggested a verse in the bible where grape juice (new wine) is derived from the clusters. "Thus saith the LORD, As the new wine is found in the cluster, and one saith, Destroy it not; for a blessing is in it: (Isaiah 65:8)

Also, a poster/winemaker suggested that the stronger drinks are obtained by adding sugar (hence "strong drink" = sugar/shekar). Something to think about anyway since everyone has a little different spin on bible verses, and languages.

I've thought about this subject more than just a little and my personal opinion is that those who argue the bible only teaches wine = juice tend to lean towards the lunitic fringe. It's not unlike people who argue that Jesus was a vegetarian (and there's plenty of websites that belabor it to the point of tears - http://www.soystache.com/jesus.htm ).

As a pratical matter, when forced to decide one way or the other (reading scripture that may be unclear to US) look for a connection between the drink and its effect. We can't cherrypick, having the words mean whichever way we want them to mean. A little common sense is in order. That's how we know the word being use is alcoholic/nonalcoholic. For example, Noah didn't get drunk on juice. Wine skins don't burst from unfermenting juice. The disciples didn't appear to be drunk at Pentecost from drinking "sweet" juice. "And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess" Eph 5:18. "Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine" (1 Tim 3:8. Everyone understood what was meant here.

The only way to keep juice from fermenting quickly is to boil the juice and preserve it. There is no instruction anywhere in the bible on how to preserve juice. And fresh juice can only be drunk in small quantities--not glass after glass as in bringing out the old wine/old wine for comparisons for the wedding (unless they had a lot of port-o-potties).

http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=988 offers a balanced view on the subject, IMO.

One more thing: someone kept referring to alcohol content, .08% etc. Keep in mind alcohol affects different people differently. First time users can get drunk on one medium beer. Others can tolerate drinking a 6-pack before you'd be able to detect "drunkeness."

What's worse? To lose your common sense of reasoning through religous fanaticism, or through temperate drinking of wine?

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

The only way to keep juice from fermenting quickly is to boil the juice and preserve it. There is no instruction anywhere in the bible on how to preserve juice. And fresh juice can only be drunk in small quantities--not glass after glass as in bringing out the old wine/old wine for comparisons for the wedding (unless they had a lot of port-o-potties).

Actually Dr. Samuel Bacchioochi has written some good information on ancient preservation techniques in his book Wine and the Bible. I disagree with his interpretations but there are actually a few other historical ways of preserving juice for a while. Few would be practical for any but the wealthiest of people. And some would no doubt taste pretty bad but there could be ways. Overall though we should admit that wine as a fermented drink was very popular and used in the Bible and even praised in the Bible. That does not make it the smartest thing today nor does it make it something that we are told to partake in. The point of the thread is to be honest with what the Bible actually says rather then making it say what we want it to say.

 

[JonMiller]

I have been asking Jews about alcohol use, the one I have communicated with so far hadn't ever heard of any such thing. I will continue asking.

If they changed from not using alcohol in Jesus time, to using it now, they should have a record among the teachings of their rabbis.

JM

 

[Sophia7]

You missed the point. The child isn't even supposed to eat grapes. The child isn't even supposed to drink sweet drinks. The emphahsis is on austerity, not alcohol avoidance.

No, the emphasis is on separation, a part of which was avoiding anything that came from grapes, both fermented and unfermented, and any fermented drink. Here are the Nazirite requirements:

NU 6:2 "Speak to the Israelites and say to them: `If a man or woman wants to make a special vow, a vow of separation to the LORD as a Nazirite, 3 he must abstain from wine and other fermented drink and must not drink vinegar made from wine or from other fermented drink. He must not drink grape juice or eat grapes or raisins. 4 As long as he is a Nazirite, he must not eat anything that comes from the grapevine, not even the seeds or skins.

NU 6:5 " `During the entire period of his vow of separation no razor may be used on his head. He must be holy until the period of his separation to the LORD is over; he must let the hair of his head grow long. 6 Throughout the period of his separation to the LORD he must not go near a dead body. 7 Even if his own father or mother or brother or sister dies, he must not make himself ceremonially unclean on account of them, because the symbol of his separation to God is on his head. 8 Throughout the period of his separation he is consecrated to the LORD.
​

In this case, to be far more obvious than I should have to be the words are being used metaphorically, not literally.

It doesn't matter if such drink was figurative or literal; the text still refers to fermented drink, using the terms yayin and shekar together.

In this case it is not an appeal to authoprity. Here I'm appealing to common sense. They went to specialized school, they took specialized classes, they have studied the subject in depth for years. The odds that we as amateurs would be right, as compared to them, is so small as to be insignificant in comparison.


Highly possible even! But, UNTIL AND UNLESS SOMEONE COMES UP WITH ACTUAL FACTS their findings stand! You don't get to wave your hands and say "They're wrong cause I said so."

No, they are wrong because the Bible says so, and even some Adventist scholars disagree with them. (Keep reading.)

That's why you don't just quote. You look at the erasoning behind what they say. BTW, I can also tell you why can't do the above.


Ah, but they are ignoring the facts. In fact, they are paying attention to more facts on the subject than you are. But, then you are a typical SDA in the pew: you have not been trained as to know what to even look for.

Here is a quote from William Shea (from the article "Beer and Wine: The Bible's Counsel" on the Biblical Research Institute site), whose assertion that Deut. 14 is talking about fermented drink (which he believes was allowed to be consumed under special circumstances though not with "a license for unrestricted recreational use") contradicts Bacchiocchi's arguments:

Thus we see an almost universal condemnation of beer in the Old Testament. But what about Deuteronomy 14:22-28? This text doesn't seem to fit the pattern; it seems to indicate that Israelites could actually pay part of their tithe in beer! Some have seen in this a modern license for beer-drinking.

First, we should carefully note that Deuteronomy 14 is dealing with a special use under special circumstances. The chapter takes up the subject of the tithe in verses 22 and 23. In a later section, it speaks about what might be called "delayed tithe." It is here that beer occurs as part of the "delayed tithe."

What is all this talking about?

Deuteronomy 14 identifies the tithe as certain foods and drinks that the Israelite was to take to the sanctuary located centrally in the nation. When the tithe was paid regularly and on time, the products offered were to include newborn lambs and calves, freshly pressed oil, new unfermented wine or grape juice (tirosh), and grain. All these were fresh products that came from the harvest of the new agricultural year.

But what was the Israelite to do if for some reason he couldn't get to the sanctuary with these fresh products? He was to make a substitution, and it is this substitution that verses 24-26 describe.

Verse 24 presents the problem: that of an Israelite who was not able to get to the sanctuary on time. Verse 25 presents the intermediate solution: he was to convert his tithe into silver and retain the money until he was able to go to the sanctuary. Verse 26 gives the final step in presenting the delayed tithe. When he arrived at the sanctuary, the Israelite was to purchase some of the same agricultural products he should have brought earlier and eat the tithe meal before the Lord.

But the products he purchased for the tithe meal must be mature to show symbolically that the tithe presentation was late. Thus he did not present a lamb; he purchased a mature sheep for presentation. He did not present a calf, but a mature ox. Instead of fresh grape juice (tirosh) he presented yayin, wine that had fermented with the passing of time. And he did not present grain; he presented beer that had been made from grain. In each case, the delayed tithe meal consisted of things chosen to correspond to and show the development of the agricultural product which should have been presented originally. Although not readily apparent, this actually involved an interest penalty since the ox would cost more than a calf and the sheep more than a lamb.

Under these special circumstances, the symbolic substitution of beer for the earlier grain when presenting "delayed tithe" can by no means be taken as a license for unrestricted recreational use of beer-either then or now. Especially when beer is elsewhere condemned in the Old Testament.
​

On the contrary. "shekar" is a sugary sweet drink. It is not alcoholic.

Shea also disagrees with this (Ibid.):

The term strong drink presents no major translation problems because only one Hebrew word, shekar, lies behind it. But even so, the translation strong drink is more general than it ought to be. Modern readers may well think of strong drink as distilled liquor. But that is not what the Bible means by the term shekar. Since the process of distilling alcohol did not develop until around A.D. 500, the strongest alcoholic beverage people could make in Bible times contained only 14 percent alcohol by volume, approximately the maximum produced by natural fermentation. This fact tells us that the scriptural term strong drink certainly gives us no license to drink what we know today as hard liquor.

If distilled alcohol is not what the Bible means by shekar, what does it mean?

Here is where ancient languages related to Hebrew can be helpful. Documents written in cuneiform script on clay tablets tell us that the Babylonians had an alcoholic beverage they called shikaru. (Notice how similar this Babylonian word is to the Hebrew shekar. It is actually the same word in two related Semitic languages.) Some of these clay tablets tell how shikaru was made so we can easily determine what beverage they are describing. From grain, the Babylonians made a mash which was allowed to ferment. In other words, these tablets that speak about making shikaru are talking about making beer! Since the Bible texts that use the word shekar are referring to the same drink, they are talking about beer as well.

This is something extremely relevant to our modern society. Here are Bible texts talking about beer-the beverage that is so widely advertized on American TV and that is so widely consumed by the American public.

And what view does the Bible take of this beverage? A very dim and negative view indeed. Of 21 Old Testament texts that mention shekar (beer), 19 strongly condemn it. The other two texts present special cases (we'll discuss one of these later). The New Testament mentions this same beverage only once and prohibits its use by John the Baptist as he grew up.​

These are statements from a highly respected Adventist scholar who is well-versed in Hebrew. You can believe your scholar, and I'll believe mine because I believe that his comments are more in line with the biblical evidence.

I also agree with him that the Bible overall presents a dim view of alcohol use and that today's distilled alcohol is nothing like the "strong drink" of Bible times. I don't drink because the risks--of drunkenness, impaired judgment, addiction, causing someone else to fall--are too great. I firmly endorse complete abstinence from that perspective.

So, you're saying they could get smashed if they wanted to any other time? Does that really make sense? When you see a lack of consistency (and God is) that's your first clue that you have something wrong.

No, they were not allowed to get smashed. Drunkenness is forbidden in the Bible (as evidenced below).

While you are right about fermented drinks you are wrong about "any product of the grapevine":

Numbers 6:20​

And the priest shall wave them for a wave offering before the LORD: this is holy for the priest, with the wave breast and heave shoulder: and after that the Nazarite may drink wine.​

That was at the conclusion of the Nazirite vow (with instructions for its termination rituals beginning in verse 13). See Numbers 6:2-4, quoted above. Grapes, raisins, wine, even the seeds and skins of grapes--all the products of the grapevine--were forbidden for a Nazirite during the time of his separation. Samson was supposed to be a Nazirite for his whole life (Judges 13:7), but most Nazirite vows were only temporary.

No, it is more than just alcohol. This view is too simplistic and naive. They weren't even supposed to drink the sweet drinks (shekar).

Of course it was more than just alcohol, which I have stated several times already, but that prohibition was included.

Where?

Here are a few places:

PR 23:20 Do not join those who drink too much wine
or gorge themselves on meat,

PR 23:21 for drunkards and gluttons become poor,
and drowsiness clothes them in rags.
_____________________________

ISA 5:11 Woe to those who rise early in the morning
to run after their drinks,
who stay up late at night
till they are inflamed with wine.
_____________________________

EPH 5:18 Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit.
_____________________________

1TH 5:4 But you, brothers, are not in darkness so that this day should surprise you like a thief. 5 You are all sons of the light and sons of the day. We do not belong to the night or to the darkness. 6 So then, let us not be like others, who are asleep, but let us be alert and self-controlled. 7 For those who sleep, sleep at night, and those who get drunk, get drunk at night. 8 But since we belong to the day, let us be self-controlled, putting on faith and love as a breastplate, and the hope of salvation as a helmet.
_____________________________

LK 21:34 "Be careful, or your hearts will be weighed down with dissipation, drunkenness and the anxieties of life, and that day will close on you unexpectedly like a trap. 35 For it will come upon all those who live on the face of the whole earth. 36 Be always on the watch, and pray that you may be able to escape all that is about to happen, and that you may be able to stand before the Son of Man."
_____________________________

RO 13:11 And do this, understanding the present time. The hour has come for you to wake up from your slumber, because our salvation is nearer now than when we first believed. 12 The night is nearly over; the day is almost here. So let us put aside the deeds of darkness and put on the armor of light. 13 Let us behave decently, as in the daytime, not in orgies and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and debauchery, not in dissension and jealousy. 14 Rather, clothe yourselves with the Lord Jesus Christ, and do not think about how to gratify the desires of the sinful nature.
_____________________________

GAL 5:19 The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20 idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21 and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.
_____________________________

1PE 4:1 Therefore, since Christ suffered in his body, arm yourselves also with the same attitude, because he who has suffered in his body is done with sin. 2 As a result, he does not live the rest of his earthly life for evil human desires, but rather for the will of God. 3 For you have spent enough time in the past doing what pagans choose to do--living in debauchery, lust, drunkenness, orgies, carousing and detestable idolatry.

​

Correct! But, as I have repeatedly noted and you keep skipping over--didn't you read the sign! --even one glass of wine can affect your decision-making skills. So, how much "wine" are you going to "allow" people to drink? Do you go to church smashed, half-smashed, a quarter smashed, an eigthth smashed, what? Are you really loving God with all your heart, mind and strength when you are in that condition? Who/which do you love more: God or the drink?

Yes, I agree, and I don't drink. Although I see the biblical evidence as condemning drunkenness and not issuing a blanket prohibition of all alcohol consumption, there are good reasons to abstain, and I believe that today's "strong drink" carries many more risks than existed in Bible times, especially since they didn't have cars back then with which to kill each other while inebriated.
​

 

[Sophia7]

From an email I just received:

"I have heard a presentation by Dr. Donald Mahon (“Mah-on”), making a strong case that from ancient times even to the 19th century in some parts of the world, fermented wine was used in extremely restricted amounts as a source of essential phytonutrients which they had no other way to obtain during the winter.

He tells how they would bottle all the juice from the family vineyard and then date each bottle, spaced through the winter, and take it by the tablespoon full or very small glass. They didn’t dare overindulge because they wouldn’t have enough to last till next season. At the same time, the alcohol content was very low, perhaps as low as 1%, just enough to preserve it from spoilage. He argues that we have a hard time appreciating the situation before the nineteenth century; that after 1850 was the first time that large numbers of people in the developed world had an abundance of food to eat.

For most of ancient times, most families had all they could do to get enough food to subsist on. Both meat eating and mildly alcoholic drinks were allowed, because the supplies were not abundant enough for most people to overindulge. There were harmful elements in both, but they were not concerned with longevity—they were concerned with getting through the next winter. No point in worrying about what your arteries will look like at 80, if you starve at 22.

The degenerative diseases that plague Western societies today were almost unknown before 1850, because the vast majority of the population did not have enough wealth to overindulge either on food or wine. Other developments of about the same time are the increasing disease in animals and the distilling of alcohol, so that instead of 1-2% alcohol, wines may have 10% or more, and hard liquors up to 50% alcohol."

All the more reason to believe that people in the OT or in Jesus' time could have consumed small amounts of fermented drink without getting drunk.

 

[Sophia7]

On the contrary. "shekar" is a sugary sweet drink. It is not alcoholic.

On page 231 of his book Wine in the Bible (came out in 1989), Dr. Bacchiocchi writes:

"... like yayin ("wine"), shekar is a genric term that could refer to either to a sweet, unfermented beverage as suggested by Isaiah 24:9, or to a fermented, intoxicating beverage as indicated in most other instances (Prov. 20:12; 31:4-6; Is. 56:12)."

This is inline with the email repsonse he just sent me about some verses I questioned him about:

"Both yayin and shekar can be fermented or unfermented. Shekar can be a sweet or strong beverage, depending on whether it is fermented or unfermented."

So which way is it then? Bacchiocchi's response to you indicates that shekar can mean a fermented or unfermented beverage, contrary to what you posted earlier. If that is true, you would have to determine its meaning by the context. The usage of shekar in the Bible (verses quoted here) is in the context of fermented drink. Shea says this:

And what view does the Bible take of this beverage? A very dim and negative view indeed. Of 21 Old Testament texts that mention shekar (beer), 19 strongly condemn it. The other two texts present special cases (we'll discuss one of these later). The New Testament mentions this same beverage only once and prohibits its use by John the Baptist as he grew up.

To give something of the picture these 19 Old Testament texts convey, let's look at what some of them say about shekar: Leviticus 10:9 prohibits its use by a priest in ministry; Numbers 6:2, 3 forbids Nazarites from drinking it; in Judges 13:3, 4 an angel warns Samson's mother-to-be not to drink it during her pregnancy; in Deuteronomy 29:5, 6 God tells the Israelites that He did not provide this drink for them in their wilderness wanderings.

There is also the interesting story of Hannah. She went to the tabernacle at Shiloh and prayed so earnestly about the fact that she was childless that the priest accused her of being drunk with shekar. This she denied. See 1 Samuel 1:15.

The prophets of Judah in the eighth century B.C. were especially vigorous in their condemnation of strong drink, or beer. Isaiah mentions it eight times, and each reference is strongly negative. He pronounces a woe upon those who drink it (Isa 5:11) and notes that it would not bring mirth when God cursed the land (Isa 24:9). He points out that beer causes staggering (Isa 29:9) and that false priests and prophets were two groups who especially staggered from its effects (Isa 28:7). The prophet Micah noted that the people wanted precisely this kind of leader-one who would approve of its use (Mic 2:11). Proverbs 20:1 speaks of rage and brawling as two of its side effects.

​

He clearly believes that these texts speak of fermented drink.

 

[thecountrydoc]

I would hate to be a primary care physician for any of those who have posted here. I do believe that if any of you had a life threatening health problem, and I held an injection in my hand that would cure your problem, a debate would take place before anyone would accept the injection. And even then some would refuse medical treatment.

Respectfully, your brother in Christ,
Doc

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

I would hate to be a primary care physician for any of those who have posted here. I do believe that if any of you had a life threatening health problem, and I held an injection in my hand that would cure your problem, a debate would take place before anyone would accept the injection. And even then some would refuse medical treatment.

Respectfully, your brother in Christ,
Doc

So does that mean that there is no such thing as scripture manipulation or that your beliefs must be accepted without any questioning? Because you believe you have the cure and the proper injection.

Never trust someone who says, "trust me".