The Real Deal

[SnowBird77]

Well, you will have the opportunity to explain in the course of the debate.

Here is a link the formal debate rules:
http://www.christianforums.com/a187-general-apologetics-formal-debate-forum-rules.html

And here is the requisite invitation link:
http://www.christianforums.com/t2230380-wine-vs-grape-juice.html

I don't know when I will be able to get to this debate. I have been getting ready for a major move that happens today. I will be in touch, hopefully.

 

[StormyOne]

Palehorse, no need for a formal debate... when we last talked about this issue I simply asked for a text that suggests what you are saying about Deut 14:26. Where does God say that the celebration He directed and allowed in Deut which included whatever the COI wanted including wine and strong drink is not a celebration but a food and drink offering. That is where the rub is for me... You have suggested by using the texts in Numbers that refer to God's directives for how offerings were to be prepared that those same directives apply to God's directives about the tithe and how it could be used... In my opinion those are two separate things. I am waiting for you to provide a text tying them together... until that happens, I think that's where we are ummmm stuck for lack of a better term....

 

[SnowBird77]

Personally, I prefer an exclusive discussion, rather than a formal debate.

 

[StormyOne]

Personally, I prefer an exclusive discussion, rather than a formal debate.

exclusive or inclusive?

 

[SnowBird77]

exclusive or inclusive?

I don't understand. The choice is between discussion and formal debate. Formal debates have set rules.

 

[tall73]

Tall, I want to apologize for making you feel like I was picking on you personally. No way would I do that! I have always valued your opinion very much. What you said about being able to drink, just not get drunk...that seemed like a perfect place to ask my question about having alcohol at church functions, that's all. I'm sorry if I came across as being in opposition with you personally, because that's not the case. Again, I sincerely apologize brother.

I am not asking you to apologize, though I thank you for doing so. I was simply pointing out that if you quote someone, and disagree, it would be best to put biblical evidence for your position, or to address the biblical evidence that was there. And I hope that you did not take my statements as an attack either, because I do not intend it that way. I am simply saying that the evidence must be looked at.

However, so that I'm being completely honest, I do take issue with you telling us that we make it easier for critics to attack our beliefs because we "take what we want and leave the rest". I've never been a big fan of trying to win popularity contests nor of huge generalizations like that one. Trust me brother, there are still times that I'd like to have a margarita with dinner but I know in my heart that it isn't right so I do not. It's not what I want so much as what I feel is expected from us as Christians.

Then please understand, I am not talking about what you DO at all. I think we all took vows not to drink and we should not. It is when we say something is a biblical statement, when there is a fair amount of evidence it is not, that means that we give the impression we don't truly follow the Bible. The stand on alcohol is one that we have taken on the principle, but it goes beyond the text.

It is not about popularity. Popularity should not be the basis for any of our decisions. But it is about what the Bible says.

My point is that if we are going to hold people to the details on our testing truths, we should be willing to acknowledge the details on other issues.

And I can tell you from studying with people, it is not a generalization. People since really about the 60's on have heightened hypocricy detectors. If we present views that are not biblically accurate and they catch us in it, our credibility is blown. They won't listen to us on anything.

I do agree that we should weigh the implications of what we say though. I'm sure it's a little confusing to those visiting the board that some of us are appearing to biblically condone the use of alcohol, even if that isn't really what they're saying at all.

If people read the whole topic they will no doubt understand the position. I don't think anyone yet has said we should be drinking. They simply said the Bible does not prohibit it.

I meant what I said...if a person isn't able to pop open a beer in front of their pastor and the rest of the congregation but they'll do it at home, they are being a hypocrite.

None should because we all took a vow.

Back on topic.....Honor is right, this particular subject really gets people riled up for some reason. For me it's a non-issue and in all the churches I've attended in my life not one has ever condoned drinking alcohol. Yet, as weird as it seems to me, some of them did allow it for communion services....and that's where I have a real problem with it. I don't think this particular issue puts the Adventist church "out there" at all. More people that I've seen take issue with most of us being vegetarian.

I believe there are more than enough verses in the Bible telling us not to partake in alcoholic beverages, and PaleHorse wasn't even really given a chance to discuss any of them before people decided to throw in the towel for him. I'll never get why people think they can throw one verse out there to support their actions.

I could crack out several verses that tell us not to drink it but I think PaleHorse wanted this thread to go in a different direction than it is, so I'm going to butt out.

First of all, these threads are an open discussion, and the initial post was broad enough to allow for several points. Nothing prevents Pale from presenting more information. And if he presents a convincing argument then folks will listen. But others too have a right to give their arguments.

Moreover, if there is ONE verse where God specifically seems to condone drinking in some situations, which is what Stormy is alleging, then that is all you need. Once God allows it, that defeats the absolute proposition that it is completely banned.

Now we all know that is not the whole story. It is certainly not a good thing regardless. And I don't think anyone here is saying it is.

 

[tall73]

If we are going to do a formal debate we can always set up a thread here with the explanation in the beginning. This would allow for different rules that you all agree to, and would make it easier for those here to follow.

 

[SnowBird77]

Tall, I think you quoted different people in that long post, but did not indicate where the person changed.

 

[SnowBird77]

My point is that if we are going to hold people to the details on our testing truths, we should be willing to acknowledge the details on other issues.

And I can tell you from studying with people, it is not a generalization. People since really about the 60's on have heightened hypocricy detectors. If we present views that are not biblically accurate and they catch us in it, our credibility is blown. They won't listen to us on anything.

This is what I have been trying to get Palehorse to understand. Hopefully, your version is more persuasive. (Don't peek behind my back).

 

[PaleHorse]

I don't know when I will be able to get to this debate. I have been getting ready for a major move that happens today. I will be in touch, hopefully.

We can always set the date out further if that would better accommodate your situation.

Personally, I prefer an exclusive discussion, rather than a formal debate.

I don't understand. The choice is between discussion and formal debate. Formal debates have set rules.

Ummmm... now I'm confused. I clearly asked if you wanted to do a formal debate and I specified in that post that it would be one-on-one; both of these were part of the original offer and established up front prior to you agreeing to the terms. Are you changing your mind? And if so, why?

 

[PaleHorse]

Palehorse, no need for a formal debate... when we last talked about this issue I simply asked for a text that suggests what you are saying about Deut 14:26. Where does God say that the celebration He directed and allowed in Deut which included whatever the COI wanted including wine and strong drink is not a celebration but a food and drink offering. That is where the rub is for me... You have suggested by using the texts in Numbers that refer to God's directives for how offerings were to be prepared that those same directives apply to God's directives about the tithe and how it could be used... In my opinion those are two separate things. I am waiting for you to provide a text tying them together... until that happens, I think that's where we are ummmm stuck for lack of a better term....

I feel differently and see the need for a formal debate. If you recall, SnowBird77 and I were discussing a facet of the question (regarding wine) and then you jumped in and altered the course of that discussion. That is fine and well and if SnowBird and I have our formal debate on the other facet I'll happily join you in discussing the Deut topic.
The point is, just as I feared and attempted to preempt in post #14 and reitterated in post #30 (but by post #46 the water was so muddled that it was difficult to see where we were in the discussion), that the only way to get to the bottom of such vast topics is to cover them slowly and keep the questions simple - too many cooks spoil the soup.

This is why I insist on a formal, one-on-one debate because otherwise there is no guarantee that others will not join in and thus muddle the waters all over again. So yes, there is a need for the formal debate method.

 

[StormyOne]

I feel differently and see the need for a formal debate. If you recall, SnowBird77 and I were discussing a facet of the question (regarding wine) and then you jumped in and altered the course of that discussion. That is fine and well and if SnowBird and I have our formal debate on the other facet I'll happily join you in discussing the Deut topic.
The point is, just as I feared and attempted to preempt in post #14 and reitterated in post #30 (but by post #46 the water was so muddled that it was difficult to see where we were in the discussion), that the only way to get to the bottom of such vast topics is to cover them slowly and keep the questions simple - too many cooks spoil the soup.

This is why I insist on a formal, one-on-one debate because otherwise there is no guarantee that others will not join in and thus muddle the waters all over again. So yes, there is a need for the formal debate method.

That's cool... I see this all as learning... in a discussion that's what happens... while others jumped in, it was still possible to follow your reasoning and to respond based on where you were coming from.... however all are not able to do that.... so perhaps a debate will help in keeping you focused... or me focused.... I didn't see the waters muddied, but that's just me.....

 

[PaleHorse]

That's cool... I see this all as learning... in a discussion that's what happens... while others jumped in, it was still possible to follow your reasoning and to respond based on where you were coming from.... however all are not able to do that.... so perhaps a debate will help in keeping you focused... or me focused.... I didn't see the waters muddied, but that's just me.....

Its not a question of one's focus for there are other considerations to bear in mind, for me at least.. For instance, when I began discussing the Deut topic with you SnowBird thought that I'd stopped talking about the other topic...which I hadn't. Additionally, I don't see these threads as being exclusively for Adventists, others from differing denominations come in to read what has been posted. When a thread becomes too convoluted the reader can become confused and/or disinterested and that doesn't help anyone. Keeping things clear aids to understanding and learning...that is how I like to operate. Of course, that's just me....

 

[StormyOne]

Its not a question of one's focus for there are other considerations to bear in mind, for me at least.. For instance, when I began discussing the Deut topic with you SnowBird thought that I'd stopped talking about the other topic...which I hadn't. Additionally, I don't see these threads as being exclusively for Adventists, others from differing denominations come in to read what has been posted. When a thread becomes too convoluted the reader can become confused and/or disinterested and that doesn't help anyone. Keeping things clear aids to understanding and learning...that is how I like to operate. Of course, that's just me....

Not a problem... when the dust settles then perhaps we can discuss/debate Deut in a more formal manner...

 

[tall73]

Snow, actually that was all from one person, from one post in fact. Hope that clarifies.

 

[tall73]

Palehorse,

This is partly in response to your posts here, and partly to the ones in the other forum. I hope that is alright.

Again, please keep in mind that I in no way feel drinking is a good thing, and believe it should be banned on a national level. But I am not sure the Bible endorses the view that all drinking was prohibited, though durnkeness clearly was. Moreover, I think the Bible gives an overall dim view of drinking, and see no reason why we should have to drink. But I want to look at the textual evidence you provided.

The same root words are used for wine and strong drink in many texts where it is quite clear that they mean strong drink. In fact, I haven't found really any instances where it was questioned that this was what it was, other than the one you are citing, where the question comes from something other than simply the previous usage in the Bible. Rather you are questioning it on the overall tenor of scripture. But we must still look at the biblical usage of the words themselves. While lexical meanings are helpufl, usage is perhaps more important in considering the biblical meaning. And of course we give precedence to those written by Moses, as his usage would seemingly be consistent. But others are still helpful. Notice the following examples of the terms for strong drink and wine that you have presented.

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:

Num 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.

Isa 28:7 But they also have erred through wine, and through strong drink are out of the way; the priest and the prophet have erred through strong drink, they are swallowed up of wine, they are out of the way through strong drink; they err in vision, they stumble in judgment.
Isa 28:8 For all tables are full of vomit and filthiness, so that there is no place clean.

Jdg 13:3 And the angel of the LORD appeared unto the woman, and said unto her, Behold now, thou art barren, and bearest not: but thou shalt conceive, and bear a son.
Jdg 13:4 Now therefore beware, I pray thee, and drink not wine nor strong drink, and eat not any unclean thing:
Jdg 13:5 For, lo, thou shalt conceive, and bear a son; and no razor shall come on his head: for the child shall be a Nazarite unto God from the womb: and he shall begin to deliver Israel out of the hand of the Philistines.

1Sa 1:15 And Hannah answered and said, No, my lord, I am a woman of a sorrowful spirit: I have drunk neither wine nor strong drink, but have poured out my soul before the LORD.

again in this noteworthy text that we have cited before in avoidance of alcohol.

Pro 20:1 Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging: and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise.

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.

Isa 5:11 Woe unto them that rise up early in the morning, that they may follow strong drink; that continue until night, till wine inflame them!

Isa 29:9 Stay yourselves, and wonder; cry ye out, and cry: they are drunken, but not with wine; they stagger, but not with strong drink.

I never saw a clear indication of a text where it meant anything other than strong drink. In fact, many of the verses here are the ones we have both cited to show that the strong drink is at least discouraged in the Bible.

Even in your own analysis there is one definition that I think needs a bit of clarifying, that of Jerome:

"Shechar in the Hebrew tongue means every kind of drink which can intoxicate, whether made from grain or from the juice of apple, or when honey-combs are boiled down into a sweet and strange drink, or the fruit of palm pressed into liquor, and when water is coloured and thickened from boiled herbs." (Jerome, Letter to Nepotian, cited in The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, p. 273)

Now it includes fruit, but he clearly says it is intoxicating. This is the clear implication of its usage in the Bible as well. You can certainly make intoxicating beverages from fruit elements.

The Brown Drivers Briggs Hebrew dictionary defines it as

strong drink, intoxicating drink, fermented or intoxicating liquor

So perhaps the Strong's definition is not that far off.

 

[PaleHorse]

I'll be the first to agree that "strong drink" can mean either fermented or unfermented. And there are many verses in the Bible where "strong drink" is unquestionably alcoholic; but when we analyze those particular verses we always see (unless I missed any) that something bad/negative happens as a result of imbibing it. The same is not true when we see verses where "strong drink " isn't so clearly defined as being alcoholic according to the context it is presented in.

My disagreement with the Strong's lexicon is that it's definition completely excludes the possibilty that "strong drink" can also mean "sweet drink" or "strong-tasting drink"; that is my main contention with the Strong's concordance.

If I may comment quickly on the quote from Jerome:

"Shechar in the Hebrew tongue means every kind of drink which can intoxicate, whether made from grain or from the juice of apple, or when honey-combs are boiled down into a sweet and strange drink, or the fruit of palm pressed into liquor, and when water is coloured and thickened from boiled herbs." (Jerome, Letter to Nepotian, cited in The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, p. 273)

Though it seems contradictory, notice the bolded section. Can you think of a single alcoholic beverage that is made from boiled herbs? I've found no evidence of such a drink in any of the ancient texts (to include Josephus' complete works). Also, the first sentence of the quote, the one you had bolded in your reply, doesn't limit itself to ONLY drinks that are alcoholic - it simply says that all alcoholic beverages (aside from those made by grapes) are called shechar. When we consider it's usage is not limited to ONLY alcoholic beverages, it just includes all of them, and add to that the other textual evidence from the other sources then we can only conclude shechar can mean both types of beverages.

Earlier, I think in this post, I stated that drink offerings could be alcoholic - I was mistaken. I made the mistake because I spoke before I had researched the Hebrew terms fully. The fact of the matter, and the one that the scriptures have made abundantly clear, is that no offering to God could contain leaven. Leaven couldn't even be in their homes! Alcoholic wine, as I can show not only from ancient sources but modern ones as well, requires the addition of yeast in their production - as such it is an unfit offering to God. Just like swine was not used as an offering either.

 

[tall73]

Again, you are not basing it on usage, but on your understanding of other Hebrew realities. I don't see one passage that makes it clear it wasn't alcoholic. And as to herbs, I am not aware of any either, but then if your other quote was correct there would be other elements added. And there certainly could be herbs with drug like qualities.

Whether the word could take in the idea of non-fermented beverages, it seems rather troubling that we never see a plain text where it does.

 

[awesumtenor]

Earlier, I think in this post, I stated that drink offerings could be alcoholic - I was mistaken. I made the mistake because I spoke before I had researched the Hebrew terms fully. The fact of the matter, and the one that the scriptures have made abundantly clear, is that no offering to God could contain leaven. Leaven couldn't even be in their homes! Alcoholic wine, as I can show not only from ancient sources but modern ones as well, requires the addition of yeast in their production - as such it is an unfit offering to God. Just like swine was not used as an offering either.

The prohibition against having leaven in one's home was not a universal prohibition; they could not have any leaven in their homes for passover and the feast of unleavened bread but the remainder of the year there was no prohibition. Also, wine can be and is produced utilizing carbonic maceration to produce sweet wines without the utilization of yeast. In this process, the grapes are not even pressed. This wine making process dates back to the sumerian civilization some 6+ millenia ago.

In His service,
Mr. J

 

[tall73]

Was just about to put the same there awesumtenor...

EX 12:14 "This is a day you are to commemorate; for the generations to come you shall celebrate it as a festival to the LORD--a lasting ordinance. 15 For seven days you are to eat bread made without yeast. On the first day remove the yeast from your houses, for whoever eats anything with yeast in it from the first day through the seventh must be cut off from Israel. 16 On the first day hold a sacred assembly, and another one on the seventh day. Do no work at all on these days, except to prepare food for everyone to eat--that is all you may do.

There is evidence of no yeast in sacrifices:

EX 23:18 "Do not offer the blood of a sacrifice to me along with anything containing yeast.
"The fat of my festival offerings must not be kept until morning.

However, note this one:

LEV 2:11 " `Every grain offering you bring to the LORD must be made without yeast, for you are not to burn any yeast or honey in an offering made to the LORD by fire. 12 You may bring them to the LORD as an offering of the firstfruits, but they are not to be offered on the altar as a pleasing aroma. 13 Season all your grain offerings with salt. Do not leave the salt of the covenant of your God out of your grain offerings; add salt to all your offerings.

Isn't the firstfruits what we are discussing here? Apparently in the first fruits such things as leven was not an issue.