Your opinion on drinking

Studious One · Jun 2, 2012

I find it interesting how word meanings have changed over the centuries.

In 1726, the Philip Bailey Dictionary gives this definition for the word "intoxicate":

INTOXICATE [intoxication L.] to poison, to make drunk, to bewitch

The definition changed in the 19th Century AD. Webster's 1828 Dictionary defines intoxicate in this manner:

Webster's 1828 Dictionary [A-J]
intoxicate INTOX'ICATE, v.t. in and L. toxicum, which, Pliny informs us, is from taxa, a species of tree.
1. To inebriate; to make drunk; as with spirituous liquor.
As with new wine intoxicated both,
They swim in mirth--
2. To excite the spirits to a kind of delirium; to elate to enthusiasm, frenzy or madness. Success may sometimes intoxicate a man of sobriety. An enthusiast may be intoxicated and zeal.
INTOX'ICATE, a. Inebriated.

Note that the latter definition does not include the definition "to poison" that the former used.

The Online Etymology Dictionary records the word originated in the early 16th Century AD and at that time meant "full of poison"

Alcohol is an intoxicant. It is a poison that men take into the mouth that steals away the brain.

WinBySurrender · Jun 2, 2012

Ludicrous statements abound on this thread regarding the wine on Jesus' tables. One wants to point to the wedding feast at Cana and claim that the text "proves" this was grape juice, not wine. What a laugh! Guaranteed it was alcoholic. As I said before, oinos, the word used 26 times in the New Testament for wine -- including in the account of the wedding feast -- describes an alcoholic beverage. The view that it was not alcoholic comes from the desire of some to make alcohol itself sinful, which is ridiculous. The Bible does not forbid drinking, only drunkenness. In fact, wine was "mixed", as is said many times in the Old Testament, with water in order to make the water potable. To this day, Mideastern wells are filled with all sorts of bacteria that can make one ill, or even kill. The alcohol in the wine kills the bacteria so the water can be safely absorbed into the body for hydration.

Rhamiel · Jun 2, 2012

Suppose we lived during the 1920s, prohibition days, and were approached by two people offering us a drink of cider. One of the persons, we knew to be one of the holiest men in town, faithful to the house of God, separated from the world, diligent in prayers, always witnessing to others; the other was a known liquor dealer. If each one offered us a drink of his very own cider, we would assume that the holy persons was no more than apple juice, but there would be no doubt about our opinion regarding the liquor dealers cider! Obviously, the character of a person influences what that one does.

see, this is just where we do not agree
I do not equate holiness with total lack of alcohol
now maybe like in 1920's because it was against the law to have alcohol
maybe not, because that was an unjust law, are we called to follow unjust laws?

dies-l · Jun 3, 2012

Rhamiel said:
are we called to follow unjust laws?

It depends. If the law is unjust in that it prohibits something that one ought to be allowed to do but is not morally compelled to do, believers should nonetheless obey. If it is a law that compels immoral behavior or prohibits that which is morally compelled, then believers should follow their conscience instead.

DeaconDean · Jun 3, 2012

Studious One said:
Codex Sinaiticus?

That explains why you are wrong.

Codex Sinaiticus is the corrupt text out of Alexandria

Codex Sinaiticus

(Hebrew: קודקס סינאיטיקוס‎, Greek: Σιναϊτικός Κώδικας; Shelfmarks and references: London, Brit. Libr., Additional Manuscripts 43725; Gregory-Aland nº א [Aleph] or 01, [Soden δ 2]) is one of the four great uncial codices, an ancient, handwritten copy of the Greek Bible.The codex is considered a priceless historical treasure.

The codex is an Alexandrian text-type manuscript written in the 4th century in uncial letters on parchment. Current scholarship considers the Codex Sinaiticus to be one of the best Greek texts of the New Testament, along with that of the Codex Vaticanus. Until the discovery by Tischendorf of the Sinaiticus text, the Codex Vaticanus was unrivaled.

The Codex Sinaiticus came to the attention of scholars in the 19th century at the Greek Orthodox Monastery of Mount Sinai, with further material discovered in the 20th and 21st centuries. Although parts of the Codex are scattered across four libraries around the world, most of the manuscript today resides within the British Library. Since its discovery, study of the Codex Sinaiticus has proven to be extremely useful to scholars for the purposes of biblical translation.

Originally, the Codex contained the whole of both Testaments. Approximately half of the Greek Old Testament (or Septuagint) survived, along with a complete New Testament, plus the Epistle of Barnabas, and portions of The Shepherd of Hermas.

Codex Sinaiticus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So...the only correct Greek text is the Western, Bezentine, or the MT?

Dr. Evil said:
Yea...right.

And for future reference:

The idea that the majority of existing Greek manuscripts (i.e. the numerous medieval copies) somehow represent the original text better than any of the oldest manuscripts known to us is an idea that is very hard to defend intellectually. One would suppose, even on common-sense grounds, that a consensus of the earlier copies is likely to be closer to the original text. Against this, it is said that perhaps all of the early manuscripts known to us have derived from a deviant kind of text which gained currency only in the area around Alexandria, where these very old manuscripts were preserved on account of the dry climate. But this hypothesis fails to account for the readings of the ancient versions (e.g. Latin and Syriac) which frequently agree with the older Greek copies against the later ones. We cannot reasonably suppose that the Latin and Syriac versions were based upon manuscripts that were not circulating in Italy and Syria. And then there are the scripture quotations from ecclesiastical writers who lived outside of Egypt, which likewise often support the earlier manuscripts. It is very hard for a Majority Text advocate to overcome this evidence, and certainly it cannot all be brushed aside with an hypothesis about "Alexandrian" deviations. For this reason, very few competent scholars have argued in favor of the Majority Text.

The most well-known advocate of the Majority text is Wilbur Pickering, who in 1977 published a book on the subject called The Identity of the New Testament Text. This book was brought out by a major publisher (Thomas Nelson), and carried a laudatory Forward by Zane C. Hodges, who is also prominent as a Majority Text advocate. Pickering has a doctorate in Linguistics, but no formal training in textual criticism. Of course it is not absolutely necessary to have formal training in a subject in order to have expertise in it; some men have made themselves experts in textual criticism outside of any formal training (Samuel Tregelles comes to mind). But a lack of academic credentials ought to make us cautious in evaluating their work.

Gordon Fee, who is widely recognized as a competent scholar in the field of textual criticism, has subjected Pickering's work to a close examination in a series of articles, and Fee's articles should be read by any student who has read Pickering's book. In my opinion, Fee shows that Pickering's arguments are badly flawed. This view of Pickering's work is also shared by the one scholar who might have been willing and able to defend it successfully, Maurice Robinson.

Dr. Maurice A. Robinson, whose doctorate is in Textual Criticism, is by far the most competent scholar who favors something like the Majority text. He is professor of New Testament and Greek at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Wake Forest, North Carolina. Dr. Robinson has as yet produced no general treatise on textual criticism, although he has published several articles dealing with special problems and issues. He has also published a critical edition of the Byzantine Greek text-form which represents his attempt to reconstruct the earliest form of that manuscript tradition. Dr. Robinson is a frequent contributor to the TC-list academic e-group, and many of his messages will be found in the online archives of the group. It remains to be seen whether Robinson will produce arguments that adequately address the problems inherent in the "Byzantine Priority" theory which he proposes.

http://www.bible-researcher.com/majority.html

BTW: One of my seminary teachers was a student and good friend of Dr. Maurice Robinson.

And, the author mentions:

By Gordon Fee, "Modern Textual Criticism and the Revival of the Textus Receptus" in Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 21 (1978) 19-33, plus "A Rejoinder," 157-60; "A Critique of W. N. Pickering's The Identity of the New Testament Text" in Westminster Theological Journal, 41 (1979) 397-423; "The Majority Text and the Original Text of the New Testament" in The Bible Translator, 31 (1980) 107-18; and chapter 10 of Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993)."

I actually have taken the time to read these, have you?

God Bless

Till all are one.

WinBySurrender · Jun 3, 2012

dysert said:
Perhaps he was thinking about parts of the OT being in Aramaic. Or that Jesus possibly spoke Aramaic?

You're right, Jesus probably did speak Aramaic, but because the universal language of commerce throughout the Roman-Asian world was Koine Greek, the writers of the New Testament wrote in Koine for the purpose of spreading the gospel faster. Everyone spoke it, right down to the fishermen and farmers, because of need to be able to deal with foreigners to sell their product.

01tj · Jun 3, 2012

WinBySurrender said:
The Bible does not forbid drinking, only drunkenness. In fact, wine was "mixed", as is said many times in the Old Testament, with water in order to make the water potable. To this day, Mideastern wells are filled with all sorts of bacteria that can make one ill, or even kill. The alcohol in the wine kills the bacteria so the water can be safely absorbed into the body for hydration.

If used to purify water then I can see a point in drinking alcohol but what about Americans who drink? I hear people say all the time its ok as long as I don't get drunk but in that case why not drink grape juice, pop/soda (which I know is also bad for you), or even just plain old fortified tap water?

SearchingStudent · Jun 3, 2012

01tj said:
If used to purify water then I can see a point in drinking alcohol but what about Americans who drink? I hear people say all the time its ok as long as I don't get drunk but in that case why not drink grape juice, pop/soda (which I know is also bad for you), or even just plain old fortified tap water?

Exactly my point. In my culture of origin, even though I was born in the US, one may drink beer or wine or even a cocktail but drunkenness is NOT done. Period! Americans...drink to excess. I was served beer or wine in a glass as a child and LEARNED how to drink. I don't drink often now, but I am perfectly capable of stopping at ONE. Most Americans take it to one of the two extremes, teatotaling or drunkenness...in most of the rest of the world, it's a complete non-issue...maybe the Americans need to take a good look at themselves rather than the booze...

01tj · Jun 3, 2012

SearchingStudent said:
Exactly my point. In my culture of origin, even though I was born in the US, one may drink beer or wine or even a cocktail but drunkenness is NOT done. Period! Americans...drink to excess. I was served beer or wine in a glass as a child and LEARNED how to drink. I don't drink often now, but I am perfectly capable of stopping at ONE. Most Americans take it to one of the two extremes, teatotaling or drunkenness...in most of the rest of the world, it's a complete non-issue...maybe the Americans need to take a good look at themselves rather than the booze...

Yeah, I guess the best answer is it may be a sin for one person but not for another. One drink for me wouldn't necessarily lead to another but one drink for a recovering alcoholic would be a different story. But it still goes back to my question, for us (in the US and other countries with purified water) whats the point. People will probably always argue on the topic but there is still not a good reason for us to drink alcohol.

SearchingStudent · Jun 3, 2012

01tj said:
Yeah, I guess the best answer is it may be a sin for one person but not for another. One drink for me wouldn't necessarily lead to another but one drink for a recovering alcoholic would be a different story. But it still goes back to my question, for us (in the US and other countries with purified water) whats the point. People will probably always argue on the topic but there is still not a good reason for us to drink alcohol.

Do I NEED a "good reason" to have a glass of wine or an ice cold beer? No, no more than I need a reason to have a lemonade or glass of tea or cup of coffee. I don't drink soda...for a lot of reasons. But, i wouldn't presume to tell someone else that drinking all that high fructose corn syrup is going to send them to hell...so, if you see me in a restaurant or in my back yard or wherever with a wine glass or a bottle of beer in my hand, well...that's more my business than anyone else's. I may just be in the mood for that instead of my usual flavored water, juice or coffee.

Sodas have WAY too much sugar and empty calories to really be a viable drink option. 1 12 oz can of Mountain Dew has about 200 calories. Multiply that by however many cans you may down in a day. The cumulative health effects on your body are WORSE than my one 6 oz glass of wine or 12 oz bottle of beer. Even non-carbonated drinks that are not 100% fruit juice are awful for you. Most juice "drinks" are nothing more than chemical concoctions. And people give these to their children...why?

So, if you want to talk about not drinking alcohol from a health standpoint, go check the list of ingredients for your favorite soft drink...

WinBySurrender · Jun 3, 2012

01tj said:
If used to purify water then I can see a point in drinking alcohol but what about Americans who drink? I hear people say all the time its ok as long as I don't get drunk but in that case why not drink grape juice, pop/soda (which I know is also bad for you), or even just plain old fortified tap water?

Or, if not done with the intent of getting drunk, a Bud, a glass of Merlot, or Jack, neat? Legalism has no place in Christianity. Our only guideline is not to make our brother stumble. Though I would not drink a beer in the presence of an alcoholic, it appears to me that could also apply to drinking a Coke in front of a diabetic. Why don't we ever hear of those issues? If my intent is to simply have a drink I enjoy, and I can do so without offending, I can drink any of the things you and I have mentioned with a clear conscience.

01tj · Jun 4, 2012

SearchingStudent said:
Do I NEED a "good reason" to have a glass of wine or an ice cold beer? No, no more than I need a reason to have a lemonade or glass of tea or cup of coffee. I don't drink soda...for a lot of reasons. But, i wouldn't presume to tell someone else that drinking all that high fructose corn syrup is going to send them to hell...so, if you see me in a restaurant or in my back yard or wherever with a wine glass or a bottle of beer in my hand, well...that's more my business than anyone else's. I may just be in the mood for that instead of my usual flavored water, juice or coffee.

Sodas have WAY too much sugar and empty calories to really be a viable drink option. 1 12 oz can of Mountain Dew has about 200 calories. Multiply that by however many cans you may down in a day. The cumulative health effects on your body are WORSE than my one 6 oz glass of wine or 12 oz bottle of beer. Even non-carbonated drinks that are not 100% fruit juice are awful for you. Most juice "drinks" are nothing more than chemical concoctions. And people give these to their children...why?

So, if you want to talk about not drinking alcohol from a health standpoint, go check the list of ingredients for your favorite soft drink...

Believe me I know, the carbonation delays or even blocks the bodies absorbing of nutrients, the acids eat away your insides and high consumption of sugar is now being linked to cancer, heart disease and several other health problems. Then throw artificial sweeteners from diet pop in the mix and you have a new list of problems.

I'm not trying to be judgemental or cause problems I really am just asking the question, if its a sin to get drunk why even have one? There are other tasty beverages that won't put you in danger of sinning. Iced tea sweetened with agave nectar is a healthy option that is lower in calories and won't harm your liver, brain or hormonal levels.

I don't think a believer has to answer to me or anyone else on this earth for drinking. I am not God or Jesus and have no right to judge but I do feel obligated to help a brother out if I see them stumbling. A non-believer won't see it that way though. They see a Christian drinking and then feel that we are all hypocrites.

faithabides · Jun 4, 2012

01tj said:
Believe me I know, the carbonation delays or even blocks the bodies absorbing of nutrients, the acids eat away your insides and high consumption of sugar is now being linked to cancer, heart disease and several other health problems. Then throw artificial sweeteners from diet pop in the mix and you have a new list of problems.

I'm not trying to be judgemental or cause problems I really am just asking the question, if its a sin to get drunk why even have one? There are other tasty beverages that won't put you in danger of sinning. Iced tea sweetened with agave nectar is a healthy option that is lower in calories and won't harm your liver, brain or hormonal levels.

I don't think a believer has to answer to me or anyone else on this earth for drinking. I am not God or Jesus and have no right to judge but I do feel obligated to help a brother out if I see them stumbling. A non-believer won't see it that way though. They see a Christian drinking and then feel that we are all hypocrites.

dogs4thewin · Jun 6, 2012

I think that it is OK if you are not getting drunk, matter of a fact my 21st birthday is coming up in just over two months and I will probably have a glass of wine with my meal when we go out.

Rhamiel · Jun 6, 2012

ALLorNOTHINGatall4CHRIST said:
I think that it is OK if you are not getting drunk, matter of a fact my 21st birthday is coming up in just over two months and I will probably have a glass of wine with my meal when we go out.

may I be so bold as to make some recomendations?
hmmm a nice Sauvignon Blanc from New Zealand might be nice, sweet and fuity without being overly sweet and fruity
or if you want a red the new sweet red blend from California called Apothic Red is very very popular, it is a new wine and it really took off
both of these have a bit of sweetness and fruit flavor to them but still have a hint of dryness that makes wine taste like wine

Miss Spaulding · Jun 6, 2012

I think your best bet would be to stay away from alcohol all together. For quite a few generations alcoholism has run in both sides of my family, I've seen what it does and can do to those who do drink now. I have cousin who's only a year older then I am and he's literally an alcoholic.

Sure, you may be a person with great self-control when it comes to drinking, but the fact of the matter is, alcohol does temporarily impair your judgement by intoxication...and why would any Christian wan't to allow that sort of thing to happen to them or put themselves in that kind position/temptation? Doesn't make any sense to me.

Perhaps if you look very hard you might find some good benefits to alcohol and drinking, but the negatives outweigh the positives in my opinion. I believe not drinking alcohol is the right thing to do, thus, I personally choose not to drink myself.

WinBySurrender · Jun 22, 2012

Studious One said:
I woke up this morning ... blah blah blah ... grow in Christ.

I'd missed this missive that last time I visited this thread. Again, assumption that all are susceptible to addiction to alcohol or anything simply isn't true, and if wine was the evil demon liquid you claim by selectively quoting Scripture that isn't actually about alcohol, but excessive use of alcohol, then why did Jesus drink it? Don't try to pull that nonsense that He was drinking grape juice, because the word for wine in the New Testament is oinos which is fermented wine. In fact, the word for "too much wine" is oinosflugia so it is impossible to claim oinos is not real, alcoholic wine.

faithabides · Jun 23, 2012

Just something to think about....why would Jesus transform water into a huge amount of alcoholic wine, which undoubtebly would have brought about wrecked homes, ruined lives, and endless misery. Why would he have provided a drink that could have caused drunkeness to some of the people at the wedding feast??? I don't see how social drinking can be legitimately supported by the Bible. Every drink that is available today, even beer, falls into the category of unmixed or strong drink. Drinking socially is a wordly activity and in light of the fact that believers are neither to be conformed to the world (Romans 12:2) nor love the world (1 John 2:15) our choice should be clear. We are to SEPARATE from the world (II Corninthians 6:17) and be a LIGHT to the world (Eph.5:8 and Phil. 2:15). How does social drinking glorify God??

Rhamiel · Jun 23, 2012

faithabides said:
Just something to think about....why would Jesus transform water into a huge amount of alcoholic wine, which undoubtebly would have brought about wrecked homes, ruined lives, and endless misery. Why would he have provided a drink that could have caused drunkeness to some of the people at the wedding feast??? I don't see how social drinking can be legitimately supported by the Bible. Every drink that is available today, even beer, falls into the category of unmixed or strong drink. Drinking socially is a wordly activity and in light of the fact that believers are neither to be conformed to the world (Romans 12:2) nor love the world (1 John 2:15) our choice should be clear. We are to SEPARATE from the world (II Corninthians 6:17) and be a LIGHT to the world (Eph.5:8 and Phil. 2:15). How does social drinking glorify God??

undoubtebly would have brought about wrecked homes,ruined lives and endless misery? you think that at every wedding where wine is served that lives are ruined?
as to the huge amount of alcoholic wine, if it was a huge wedding you would need a huge amount

dysert · Jun 23, 2012

faithabides said:
Just something to think about....why would Jesus transform water into a huge amount of alcoholic wine, which undoubtebly would have brought about wrecked homes, ruined lives, and endless misery. Why would he have provided a drink that could have caused drunkeness to some of the people at the wedding feast???

I'm a teetotaler, so I have no horse in this race, but this argument always slays me. Sure, Jesus created wine at the wedding feast, but He has also created marijuana and other mind-altering drugs that we've come to abuse. Just because He created something doesn't mean it's bad. It's what we do with it (e.g., taking it to extremes) that brings about sin and its tragic consequences.

Your opinion on drinking

Studious One

Guest

Well-Known Member

Member of the Round Table

dies-l

Guest

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Senior Member

Newbie

Senior Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

faithabides

dog lover

Member of the Round Table

Virtus semper viridis

Well-Known Member

faithabides

Member of the Round Table

Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency