djconklin said:
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.
djconklin said:
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.
djconklin said:
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.)
djconklin said:
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.
djconklin said:
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.
djconklin said:
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.
djconklin said:
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.
djconklin said:
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.
djconklin said:
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.