The Bible and Older Dictionaries say that 'wine" is also grape juice.

[Bible Highlighter]

She has written many books including one in favor of Kabbalah, which is Jewish mysticism and an aspect of Judaism that promotes reincarnation.

I do not endorse the Talmud. I believe in Sola Scriptura. But there are certain truths in the Talmud that do happen to line up with the Bible and other historical documents. Catholics believe in the Trinity, but that does not mean the Trinity is false just because I disagree strongly with their other practices. The Trinity is still true.

 

[Ken Rank]

No thanks. Me and Der Alter disagree on a lot. I also do not find his methods to be convincing, either. I am doing just fine studying God's Word with the help of the Lord (by asking by way of prayer), by looking at the context, looking at cross references, and by not violating God's moral laws that He has given to us (When we do read His Holy Word). This does not mean I do not look at what other believers have to say. Sometimes I read about 10 to 20 articles or even more on a wide variety of Christian topics so as to help deterimine the truth in God's Word.

OK

 

[Archivist]

The Israelites drank a diluted wine. It was still alcoholic but it's alcohol level was a lot lower than today's wines.

But in my post I wasn't addressing the question of wine diluted with water, I was addressing the claim that Jesus turned the water into grape juice at the wedding.

However, the wine that Jesus made was 100% fresh grape juice.

The passage I quoted, substituting the words grape juice for the word wine, makes no sense. Jesus converted water into wine. That wine contained alcohol. Jesus in fact consumed alcohol because it was commonly consumed in the Jewish culture at that time.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

If you think every Hebrew word translated into English perfectly you don't understand languages like you think you do. Let's forget that the English versions followed the Jewish tradition and REMOVED God's name 7000 times... where do you get "testament" from when God makes a b'rit which is best represented by "covenant" but even that word doesn't fully encompass what a b'rit is. Anyway....

Sigh. I believe words do get lost in translation and some words have to be added so as to say something that is said with fewer words from another language. My wife is Brazillian. So I know how languages work. But the key thing here is that they do essentially say the same thing. In fact, I believe God's Word is perfect in the English with the KJV because there are tons of evidences that prove that it is divine. That may not have been the intention of the translators, but it happened none the less as the KJV was perfected in 1769 with the standardization of grammar and the perfecting of the printing process, etc.

 

[Ken Rank]

I do not endorse the Talmud. I believe in Sola Scriptura. But there are certain truths in the Talmud that do happen to line up with the Bible and other historical documents. Catholics believe in the Trinity, but that does not mean the Trinity is false just because I disagree strongly with their other practices. The Trinity is still true.

You are using her as a source and half of her books are promoting the Talmud. You pick and choose your sources depending on when they agree with you. It isn't a good way to study, Jason. And I am using Scripture alone. Don't sit here and claim solo scriptura when the thread YOU STARTED says, "The Bible and Older dictionaries say..." Your own subject title says you are not scripture only. Gosh....

 

[Bible Highlighter]

But in my post I wasn't addressing the question of wine diluted with water, I was addressing the claim that Jesus turned the water into grape juice at the wedding.

The passage I quoted, substituting the words grape juice for the word wine, makes no sense. Jesus converted water into wine. That wine contained alcohol. Jesus in fact consumed alcohol because it was commonly consumed in the Jewish culture at that time.

No. You substituted the whole passage with it ALL being grape juice when I told you that this was not the case.

 

[Ken Rank]

Sigh. I believe words do get lost in translation and some words have to be added so as to say something that is said with fewer words from another language. My wife is Brazillian. So I know how languages work. But the key thing here is that they do essentially say the same thing. In fact, I believe God's Word is perfect in the English with the KJV because there are tons of evidences that prove that it is divine. That may not have been the intention of the translators, but it happened none the less as the KJV was perfected in 1769 with the standardization of grammar and the perfecting of the printing process, etc.

I can show you PLENTY of places in the 1769 that are currently still wrong. But believe whatever you want. Apparently your faith is tied to this belief and I don't want to undermine it so I will leave your thread. Shalom.

 

[Archivist]

No. You substituted the whole passage with it ALL being grape juice when I told you that this was not the case.

It was not the case because it was all wine and it all had alcohol in it.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

You are using her as a source and half of her books are promoting the Talmud. You pick and choose your sources depending on when they agree with you. It isn't a good way to study, Jason. And I am using Scripture alone. Don't sit here and claim solo scriptura when the thread YOU STARTED says, "The Bible and Older dictionaries say..." Your own subject title says you are not scripture only. Gosh....

Come on now. Sola Scriptura does not mean you cannot agree with basic studies of English, Science, Math, History, etc. That is silly.

Also, I am not claiming to agree with her odd beliefs. I also did not say I believe the Talmud in addition to Scripture. You would have to add those things to what I said in order for it to be true. But that would be falsely accusing me. So you got nothing on me here; Oh, and King Kong also does not got anything on me, either.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

It was not the case because it was all wine and it all had alcohol in it.

The Bible and other historical documents confirm that the Israelites diluted their wine. So if that is true, then they drank a wine that was mild in alcoholic content. Jesus made an unadulterated wine (i.e. unfermented wine, or fresh grape juice) because His blood represented the wine. Yeast is made in wine making. But "yeast" is a symbol or type of sin in the Bible. Not that yeast is sin in itself. It is merely a picture of sin in the Bible (See 1 Corinthians 5). So if this is true, then Jesus could not have made intoxicating wine that was made from yeast because Jesus blood had to be pure and sinless so as to cleanse us of our sins so He could be our substitute and die in our place.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I can show you PLENTY of places in the 1769 that are currently still wrong. But believe whatever you want. Apparently your faith is tied to this belief and I don't want to undermine it so I will leave your thread. Shalom.

I love a good challenge. I have ran into many verses and passages before that I could not resolve right away before in the past. But in time, God proved faithful to me every time and He showed me some pretty amazing things so as to keep trusting in His Word. So feel free to challenge me. It will not effect my faith.

 

[Archivist]

The Bible and other historical documents confirm that the Israelites diluted their wine. So if that is true, then they drank a wine that was mild in alcoholic content. Jesus made an unadulterated wine (i.e. unfermented wine, or fresh grape juice) because His blood represented the wine. Yeast is made in wine making. But "yeast" is a symbol or type of sin in the Bible. Not that yeast is sin in itself. It is merely a picture of sin in the Bible (See 1 Corinthians 5). So if this is true, then Jesus could not have made intoxicating wine that was made from yeast because Jesus blood had to be pure and sinless so as to cleanse us of our sins so He could be our substitute and die in our place.

You offer a long explanation, then say "so if this is true." The problem is it isn't true. It is nothing but your interpretation and opinion. You are certainly entitled to your interpretation but it is just that, interpretation not fact.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

You offer a long explanation, then say "so if this is true." The problem is it isn't true. It is nothing but your interpretation and opinion. You are certainly entitled to your interpretation but it is just that, interpretation not fact.

So then they drank intoxicating wine at the wedding and Jesus made even more intoxicating wine so as to contribute to their drunkenness?

 

[Archivist]

So then they drank intoxicating wine at the wedding and Jesus made even more intoxicating wine so as to contribute to their drunkenness?

There is nothing in Scripture that says that alcohol itself is inherently sinful. Rather, it is the abuse of alcohol that is sinful. Therefore, it would not have been a sin for Jesus to create a drink that contained alcohol.

 

[Der Alte]

I am more of a Bible guy, but if the Talmud is on your computer, you should be able to do a search and find it, no?
Here is one author who translated a page that talks about the diluting of wine with water (if you are interested).
A Beginner's Guide to the Steinsaltz Talmud

When one says a source says such and such they should quote it exactly and specifically identify the source. In the Talmud I have, each tractate is a separate folder and each folio in each tractate is a separate file.

No thanks. Me and Der Alter disagree on a lot. I also do not find his methods to be convincing, either. I am doing just fine studying God's Word with the help of the Lord (by asking by way of prayer), by looking at the context, looking at cross references, and by not violating God's moral laws that He has given to us (When we do read His Holy Word). This does not mean I do not look at what other believers have to say. Sometimes I read about 10 to 20 articles or even more on a wide variety of Christian topics so as to help deterimine the truth in God's Word

.

And I find it very helpful to read actual Jewish writings, how they interpreted their Hebrew scriptures and lived by them.

 

[Ken Rank]

I love a good challenge. I have ran into many verses and passages before that I could not resolve right away before in the past. But in time, God proved faithful to me every time and He showed me some pretty amazing things so as to keep trusting in His Word. So feel free to challenge me. It will not effect my faith.

Jason, I have no desire to tear the KJV down, it is a fine translation. You are not hearing what I am saying... or I am saying it poorly which is why I need to just move on. But I will throw this out since you seem to want some challenge... go reconcile where we get the idea of a New "Testament" from. I know how it came to be, and it is wrong. Furthermore, if we use the more accurate "covenant" we still fall short of the idea of a b'rit because a b'rit requires blood and a covenant does not. So we have Testament which is not even close to being consistent with Scripture, and we have covenant which is closer but still not correct. Throw in the 7000 times God's name was removed and just on these couple of examples... and trust me if on nothing else, on this.... I can list scores more.... and you do not have a perfect rendition of the underlying languages in the KJV or ANY OTHER TRANSLATION. What you have is the best you can going from a pictorial language like Hebrew into a concrete language like English.

 

[Ken Rank]

Bottom line... it is one's personal bias that comes away from the bible saying it doesn't use alcohol. The Hebrew makes it clear, as does the context... that alcohol was used by God's people. Therefore, alcohol is not the issue... being drunk and disorderly is.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

There is nothing in Scripture that says that alcohol itself is inherently sinful. Rather, it is the abuse of alcohol that is sinful. Therefore, it would not have been a sin for Jesus to create a drink that contained alcohol.

To create something is one thing; But to create something so as to magnify your glory that is sinful is quite another. To create something that would silently contribute to men's already drunkened state would be a sin. It was not like they KNEW what Jesus made for them. This was not the Garden of Eden test that God gave to Adam here. God told Adam to NOT eat of the wrong tree. No such warning was given to the wedding guests after Jesus made the supposedly intoxicating beverage. Jesus was not testing them and they failed. This miracle magnified His glory and through it his disciples believed on him all the more because of it. If Christ's miracle led men to continue in their sin, they would hardly believe in Him. That would be like Jesus going to a harlot house and then creating the most beauitiful looking prostitute so as to get men to continue in their sin all the more. Such a thing would be so wrong I would not even know where to begin to say that such a thing is wrong. It is the same with secretly creating a substance for the wedding guests that would help to contribute to their sin.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Bottom line... it is one's personal bias that comes away from the bible saying it doesn't use alcohol. The Hebrew makes it clear, as does the context... that alcohol was used by God's people. Therefore, alcohol is not the issue... being drunk and disorderly is.

So if it was an intoxicating beverage of macho alcoholic awesomeness, then how do you view that drunkenness did not take place at the Wedding of Cana then with Jesus not contributing to their drunkenness?

 

[Edison Trent]

There is nothing in Scripture that says that alcohol itself is inherently sinful. Rather, it is the abuse of alcohol that is sinful. Therefore, it would not have been a sin for Jesus to create a drink that contained alcohol.

There is No evidence whatsoever exists to support the notion that the wine mentioned in the bible was unfermented grape juice. when juice is referred to, it is not called wine (Genesis 40:11).