Is it ok to drink alcohol...?

[doug yowell]

As Moderator:

Jawge, please learn how to use the "Quote" buttons correctly.

John, How do the quote,quick quote, and quick reply buttons differ in their response formats?

[doug yowell]

1 Timothy 5:23 No longer drink water exclusively, but use a little wine for the sake of your stomach and your frequent ailments.

It isn't a slamdunk case *for* or *against* alcohol use.

Actually, I think that maybe I'm alone in this perception but I think that ITim.5:23 has nothing to do with any discussion about alcohol. I think Paul is using it in some sort of idiomatic way. It would be completely irreconcileable to the context of his subject. But that's fodder for a different thread I suppose.

[John317]

1 Tim. 5:23

(No longer drink only water, but use a little wine for the sake of your stomach and your frequent ailments.)

According to this, Timothy was only drinking water, but no wine at all, whether fermented or not. But whatever kind of "wine" it was, it was not for the sake of recreational or social drinking but rather because of Timothy's illnesses.

[Bravus]

Yep, that would be what I said...

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

As Moderator:

Jawge, please learn how to use the "Quote" buttons correctly.

John, How do the quote,quick quote, and quick reply buttons differ in their response formats?

This is what comes up when you use "Quick Quote." I usually use it and the "Reply" button. Straight "reply" doesn't give any quotes. I like to quote the words I'm responding to.

The best way for people to learn is simply to try them and see what suits their purposes best.

[Bravus]

I doubt you can make a solid argument based on Timothy. Let me break down the argument for you:

1) God has a certain plan/law for humanity

2) It would not make sense for God to act in discord to that law

3) Thus, any passages that may seem otherwise MUST be interpreted according to #1 and #2

I understand this logic, fccool, and it's certainly getting a good run in this discussion.

The problem is, it's circular. If we *assume*, before going to the Bible to *find out* what it says, that God's plan for humanity is abstinence, then when we go to the Bible we will do your Step 3 and interpret every text we find in accordance with that pre-existing assumption.

But when we do that we are practicing eisegesis - 'reading into' the Bible our own human beliefs and assumptions.

Good Bible study involves exegesis - 'reading out of' the Bible what God has to say to us.

That involves going to the Biblical text without already having a conclusion in mind.

[Bravus]

And now, onward to perhaps one of the most interesting passages. I'll expand it out a little bit to get the context:

Deuteronomy 14 (KJV)

22 Thou shalt truly tithe all the increase of thy seed, that the field bringeth forth year by year. 23 And thou shalt eat before the LORD thy God, in the place which he shall choose to place his name there, the tithe of thy corn, of thy wine, and of thine oil, and the firstlings of thy herds and of thy flocks; that thou mayest learn to fear the LORD thy God always. 24 And if the way be too long for thee, so that thou art not able to carry it; or if the place be too far from thee, which the LORD thy God shall choose to set his name there, when the LORD thy God hath blessed thee: 25 Then shalt thou turn it into money, and bind up the money in thine hand, and shalt go unto the place which the LORD thy God shall choose: 26 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.

I'm off back into the maths study, so I'll leave this here for some discussion.

[John317]

Something I deliberately described as 'circumstantial speculation' is hardly a 'contention'.

When you spoke of "circumstantial speculation," I didn't realize you were talking about the taste of grape juice.

I understood you to be saying it was speculation whether it was an explanation of what was said about the wine.

Originally Posted By: Bravus

As a counterpoint, let me offer some circumstantial speculation in the opposite direction (while being aware that's what it is): Grape juice is grape juice is grape juice - it all tastes pretty much the same, without much subtlety or complexity of flavour.

The above statement about grape juice I understood to be something you had observed.

Originally Posted By: Bravus

The fact that the 'ruler of the feast' was so struck by the quality of the wine Jesus made suggests to me it was 'real' (fermented) wine, which has a much more complex array of flavours and is more easily discerned.

This is the part I understood to be speculation.

But maybe you meant to indicate that both parts are speculation.

In any case, there's evidence that the first part is not a valid point, because there are differences in the taste and quality of grape juice. It's quite possible, then, that the remark about the good quality of the wine had to do with grape juice.

[Dr. Shane]

Originally Posted By: Shane

I have heard many claim they just drink it for taste, only to see them in a 12-Step meeting a few years later admitting it wasn't just for taste.

Couldn't we take anything and turn it into an issue here? Is the issue with alcohol, or self-control?

No, we can't take anything and turn it into an issue. The issue is a mind-altering chemical. Alcohol creates a dependency: physical, psychological and mental. It actually burns neurological paths in the brain. That is why the treatment success rate is so low. It is estimated that one of every 36 people that walk into an AA meeting actually die sober. Alcoholism is a self-inflected mental illness. It doesn't happen over night. Most alcoholics start out as moderate drinkers.

[John317]

Very important point. No one starts out thinking they will end up an alcoholic or that they will die from it or have their lives and their families ruined by it. They all think they have absolute control over it and can handle it just fine.

[Dr. Shane]

I am not a Nazarene, and cessation of any or all harmless, pleasant practices that do not hurt me and anyone else is patently ridiculous.

I am not a Nazarene either. I am a Seventh-day Adventist. My God is not a silent God. He called forth an end-time prophet and made it clear that those given the responsibility to carry the Three Angels' Message to the world are to abstain from alcohol. Consuming or selling alcohol is listed in the Church Manual as a reason for church discipline. This is not an insignificant issue in our denomination.

[phkrause]

Very important point. No one starts out thinking they will end up an alcoholic or that they will die from it. They all think they have absolute control over it and can handle it just fine.

I agree John. Just like smoking, drugs, even cursing to some extent.

[John317]

And now, onward to perhaps one of the most interesting passages. I'll expand it out a little bit to get the context:

Deuteronomy 14 (KJV)

22 Thou shalt truly tithe all the increase of thy seed, that the field bringeth forth year by year. 23 And thou shalt eat before the LORD thy God, in the place which he shall choose to place his name there, the tithe of thy corn, of thy wine, and of thine oil, and the firstlings of thy herds and of thy flocks; that thou mayest learn to fear the LORD thy God always. 24 And if the way be too long for thee, so that thou art not able to carry it; or if the place be too far from thee, which the LORD thy God shall choose to set his name there, when the LORD thy God hath blessed thee: 25 Then shalt thou turn it into money, and bind up the money in thine hand, and shalt go unto the place which the LORD thy God shall choose: 26 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.

Yes, this is one of the more interesting passages that we'll look at.

I'd like to quote it in the English Standard Version as well:

Quote:

Deut. 14:22-26

"You shall tithe all the yield of your seed that comes from the field year by year. [23] And before the Lord your God, in the place that he will choose, to make his name dwell there, you shall eat the tithe of your grain, of your wine, and of your oil, and the firstborn of your herd and flock, that you may learn to fear the Lord your God always. [24] And if the way is too long for you, so that you are not able to carry the tithe, when the Lord your God blesses you, because the place is too far from you, which the Lord your God chooses, to set his name there, [25] then you shall turn it into money and bind up the money in your hand and go to the place that the Lord your God chooses [26] and spend the money for whatever you desire—oxen or sheep or wine or strong drink, whatever your appetite craves. And you shall eat there before the Lord your God and rejoice, you and your household.

I notice that the NKJV reads, "Wine or similar drink." Is there a good reason for that translation or is it a mistake?

The Hebrew word translated "strong drink" in ESV is shekar. It is the same word used in Prov. 20: 1 where drinking shekar is condemned.

Proverbs 20:1

Wine is a mocker, strong drink a brawler,

and whoever is led astray by it is not wise.

Also see Isaiah 5: 11--

Woe to those who rise early in the morning,

that they may run after strong drink,

who tarry late into the evening

as wine inflames them!

Let's look at the evidence that Bacchiocchi brings forward on this verse.

Is shekar always to be understood as signifying alcohol?

[Dr. Shane]

let me offer some circumstantial speculation in the opposite direction (while being aware that's what it is): Grape juice is grape juice is grape juice - it all tastes pretty much the same, without much subtlety or complexity of flavour. The fact that the 'ruler of the feast' was so struck by the quality of the wine Jesus made suggests to me it was 'real' (fermented) wine, which has a much more complex array of flavours and is more easily discerned.

A couple of things. Not all grape juice is the same. Today we have commercialized bottling and refrigeration which makes the various types of grape juice more consistent but even today we have white grape juice, red grape juice and purple grape juice which each has its own distinct flavor.

I don't live in a vineyard area. I live in a citrus area. As far as citrus goes. I can tell the difference between good grapefruit juice, good orange juice and good lemonade and those that are not so good. We often buy fruit from roadside vendors and we don't know the quality until we get it home and taste it. I would suspect the same is true with grapes.

Then there is the issue of refrigeration. Fresh juice is always the best tasting juice. I can tell the difference between fresh squeezed grapefruit juice and week-old juice. Living without refrigeration would make the difference in taste even more profound.

I believe the wine they were drinking in the feast was probably the diluted wine with a low alcohol content that was used by the ancients at that time. Kind of comparable to our juice made from concentrate. Then Jesus made pure fresh grape juice that tasted like it was made from the finest grapes.

Now I understand Bravus' point that fermented wine comes in a complex array of flavors but that is in today's world. Today one can buy wines from Italy, France or California from a variety of vineyard and a variety of ages. In ancient Israel I suspect there wasn't such a complex array of flavors - especially for the common man.

Sister White says the wine Jesus made was 100% grape juice and I believe she was right.

[Overaged]

_________________________

"In the wilderness shall waters break out; and streams in the desert..." Isaiah 35:6,

Light In The Dark

Overaged, I looked up Isa 35: 6. It is totally irrelevant to our exchange. My wife is not looking over my shoulder, so I will add that use of such irrelevant references seems habitual amongst SDAs who have no concrete Scripture to back up a doctrine or an opinion. Don't be offended.

Isa 35:6 and my use thereof, has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand. It is just a part of my signature, which is an automated feature here on the forum, and this signature is automatically included at the bottom of every post I make - as it would be with anyone else who puts something in their signature. You too have disclosed a "bias" here that is not likely giving you a very clear view of other opinions expressed here by "SDAs"

[phkrause]

Originally Posted By: Bravus

And now, onward to perhaps one of the most interesting passages. I'll expand it out a little bit to get the context:

Deuteronomy 14 (KJV)

22 Thou shalt truly tithe all the increase of thy seed, that the field bringeth forth year by year. 23 And thou shalt eat before the LORD thy God, in the place which he shall choose to place his name there, the tithe of thy corn, of thy wine, and of thine oil, and the firstlings of thy herds and of thy flocks; that thou mayest learn to fear the LORD thy God always. 24 And if the way be too long for thee, so that thou art not able to carry it; or if the place be too far from thee, which the LORD thy God shall choose to set his name there, when the LORD thy God hath blessed thee: 25 Then shalt thou turn it into money, and bind up the money in thine hand, and shalt go unto the place which the LORD thy God shall choose: 26 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.

Yes, this is one of the more interesting passages that we'll look at.

I'd like to quote it in the English Standard Version as well:

Quote:

Deut. 14:22-26

"You shall tithe all the yield of your seed that comes from the field year by year. [23] And before the Lord your God, in the place that he will choose, to make his name dwell there, you shall eat the tithe of your grain, of your wine, and of your oil, and the firstborn of your herd and flock, that you may learn to fear the Lord your God always. [24] And if the way is too long for you, so that you are not able to carry the tithe, when the Lord your God blesses you, because the place is too far from you, which the Lord your God chooses, to set his name there, [25] then you shall turn it into money and bind up the money in your hand and go to the place that the Lord your God chooses [26] and spend the money for whatever you desire—oxen or sheep or wine or strong drink, whatever your appetite craves. And you shall eat there before the Lord your God and rejoice, you and your household.

I notice that the NKJV reads, "Wine or similar drink." Is there a good reason for that translation or is it a mistake?

The Hebrew word translated "strong drink" in ESV is shekar. It is the same word used in Prov. 20: 1 where drinking shekar is condemned.

Proverbs 20:1

Wine is a mocker, strong drink a brawler,

and whoever is led astray by it is not wise.

Also see Isaiah 5: 11--

Woe to those who rise early in the morning,

that they may run after strong drink,

who tarry late into the evening

as wine inflames them!

Let's look at the evidence that Bacchiocchi brings forward on this verse.

Is shekar always to be understood as signifying alcohol?

Here is the way the "Complete Jewish Bible" reads for Deut 14:26. And you shall turn that money into whatever your soul desires; cattle, sheep, new wine or old wine, or whatever your soul desires, and you shall eat there before the Lord, your God, and you shall rejoice, you and your household.

Notice how it mentions new wine and old wine!

[Overaged]

Yes, it is, but I'll decide that. The way I moderate, I allow for some side-issues for awhile if they come up,

On that note; I would suggest that Judas "had the Son." he walked with Jesus; he talked with Jesus, he went places and did things with Jesus...it is apparent that all of our efforts at "having the Son" fall short of "Christ and Him crucified," which is really what saves us; if we must digress into that topic. The question of "salvation" is worth considering in this topic, perhaps for the parents whose teenager just died while trying out drinking for the first time. After all; we are asking the question: Is it OK to drink alcoholic beverages?" I really don't understand how anyone can say yes, and actually prove their answer; but I am sure they will keep making the claim. The drinkers here have not produced one text that says, God says, "It is OK. Go ahead. Have a drink for The Heavenly Road."

[doug yowell]

1) God has a certain plan/law for humanity

2) It would not make sense for God to act in discord to that law

3) Thus, any passages that may seem otherwise MUST be interpreted according to #1 and #2 I understand this logic, fccool, and it's certainly getting a good run in this discussion.

The problem is, it's circular. If we *assume*, before going to the Bible to *find out* what it says, that God's plan for humanity is abstinence, then when we go to the Bible we will do your Step 3 and interpret every text we find in accordance with that pre-existing assumption.

But when we do that we are practicing eisegesis - 'reading into' the Bible our own human beliefs and assumptions.

Good Bible study involves exegesis - 'reading out of' the Bible what God has to say to us.

That involves going to the Biblical text without already having a conclusion in mind.

Huh?#'s 1&2 assume only that God has a plan for humanity and that He reveals that plan in a consistent manner. Why is that an assumption? Or are you assuming that any argument promoting abstinence is based on a failure to have previously reasoned out #'s 1&2? Or are you promoting the idea that #'s 1&2 are not necessarily true? Seems like you're talking right past cool's point.

[Bravus]

(general response to the whole of the last couple of pages)

I've already stipulated that, if we bring in EGW, the argument is over and it's abstinence all the way. And people keep on bringing her in whenever their Biblical arguments are weak.

But why even make that argument when it's a foregone conclusion. You win: if you accept EGW's words on the topic, be a total abstainer, end of story.

The inquiry we're embarked on (or, at least, I'm embarked and I'm trying to drag the rest of you along, kicking and screaming!) is to find out what the Bible says.

(Aren't you proud of me, Overaged? I resisted the temptation to write that in a bigger font! )

[Bravus]

Huh? #'s 1&2 assume only that God has a plan for humanity and that He reveals that plan in a consistent manner. Why is that an assumption? Or are you assuming that any argument promoting abstinence is based on a failure to have previously reasoned out #'s 1&2? Or are you promoting the idea that #'s 1&2 are not necessarily true? Seems like you're talking right past cool's point.

fccool was laying out the 'generic' form of the argument for all issues, but what we're talking about here is how that generic argument is used in relation to the issue of alcohol. *That* is where people make the assumption that God's plan involves abstinence and then read that into the Biblical texts. There are loads of examples of that in practice in this thread so far.

[Bravus]

Returning to Deuteronomy 14:26.

This is direct counsel to the people of God, not only to buy strong drink, but to use the tithe money to do it and to enjoy it along with good food in celebration of God's goodness. It seems pretty clear, and as John317 has stated, the word used for 'strong drink' is the same one used in Proverbs. So if the counsel in Proverbs is against its (excessive) use it's only logical to conclude that the counsel here is *for* its use.

Looking forward to Scriptural counterpoints.

[Dr. Shane]

The non-alcoholic equivalents I've tasted have universally been foul-tasting pale imitations of the real thing.

I don't know if the term "real" thing is that applicable since wine and beer are both man made. Non-alcoholic wine and beer are also man made. They are no less real than the alcoholic version.

This is a German brew. Very good.

This is my favorite. From the makers of Budweiser.

This is my wife's favorite which is actually cheaper than many other non-alcoholic brews but does have a good taste to it.

Those that are not too great:

As far as wine goes...

I never recommend that someone trying to quit drinking substitute non-alcoholic beer or wine for the alcoholic variety as a means to quit. That doesn't work. I substitute these non-alcoholic drinks for soda, coffee or some other drink. To me it is just a beverage and nothing more. It adds a little variety to the table.

[doug yowell]

[A couple of things. Not all grape juice is the same. Today we have commercialized bottling and refrigeration which makes the various types of grape juice more consistent but even today we have white grape juice, red grape juice and purple grape juice which each has its own distinct flavor.

I don't live in a vineyard area. I live in a citrus area. As far as citrus goes. I can tell the difference between good grapefruit juice, good orange juice and good lemonade and those that are not so good. We often buy fruit from roadside vendors and we don't know the quality until we get it home and taste it. I would suspect the same is true with grapes.

Then there is the issue of refrigeration. Fresh juice is always the best tasting juice. I can tell the difference between fresh squeezed grapefruit juice and week-old juice. Living without refrigeration would make the difference in taste even more profound.

I believe the wine they were drinking in the feast was probably the diluted wine with a low alcohol content that was used by the ancients at that time. Kind of comparable to our juice made from concentrate. Then Jesus made pure fresh grape juice that tasted like it was made from the finest grapes.

Now I understand Bravus' point that fermented wine comes in a complex array of flavors but that is in today's world. Today one can buy wines from Italy, France or California from a variety of vineyard and a variety of ages. In ancient Israel I suspect there wasn't such a complex array of flavors - especially for the common man.

The wife and I were up in Napa valley just b4 thanksgiving and took a tour of one of the 400 wineries in the valley. Fascinating. In order to reach the point of 14(or12,I can't remember which)% alcohol the juice has to be injected with a yeast.Wine can't reach that level without careful help from the human producer.There are 4 different kinds of grapes that wines are made from, each with it's own flavor.Most wines are allowed to sit for 3 years before they are put on the market for sale. Maybe Thunderbird is an exception.Today's alcoholic beverages are purely the result of human effort, none are the natural result of nature's natural process.

[Dr. Shane]

(general response to the whole of the last couple of pages)

I've already stipulated that, if we bring in EGW, the argument is over and it's abstinence all the way. And people keep on bringing her in whenever their Biblical arguments are weak.

I agree the Bible allows alcohol consumption. I have little doubt about that. It also allows slavery and polygamy.

The question is: Is there an abstinence requirement for God's end-time people?

Biblically there was an abstinence requirement for the Levites. There was also an abstinence requirement for the Nazarenes. Are God's end-time people also a people set apart for a specific purpose with an abstinence requirement? I believe so.

That is established by God's end-time prophet and the sanctuary doctrine. Those that don't believe in God's end-time prophet or the sanctuary doctrine are probably less likely to believe that God has an end-time people called to a specific purpose. Thus they may not believe in the high calling that most Adventists do. However for most Adventists, we are a special people called for a special purpose.

[phkrause]

Originally Posted By: Bravus

(general response to the whole of the last couple of pages)

I've already stipulated that, if we bring in EGW, the argument is over and it's abstinence all the way. And people keep on bringing her in whenever their Biblical arguments are weak.

I agree the Bible allows alcohol consumption. I have little doubt about that. It also allows slavery and polygamy.

The question is: Is there an abstinence requirement for God's end-time people?

Biblically there was an abstinence requirement for the Levites. There was also an abstinence requirement for the Nazarenes. Are God's end-time people also a people set apart for a specific purpose with an abstinence requirement? I believe so.

That is established by God's end-time prophet and the sanctuary doctrine. Those that don't believe in God's end-time prophet or the sanctuary doctrine are probably less likely to believe that God has an end-time people called to a specific purpose. Thus they may not believe in the high calling that most Adventists do. However for most Adventists, we are a special people called for a special purpose.

Excellent points Shane.