tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post7337074672057526783..comments2023-12-22T08:29:29.230-08:00Comments on WHAT IS TRUTH: The Debate over the Prohibition of Alcoholic Beverage part twoKent Brandenburghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-16112918009027925842009-08-11T02:14:07.696-07:002009-08-11T02:14:07.696-07:00Don,
I had the entire post above finished (part t...Don,<br /><br />I had the entire post above finished (part three) before I posted your comment. And when I use the word "stupid," which I decided to keep there, I'm thinking of moderationists attempting to protect their drinking.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-26703471779457012692009-08-11T00:05:52.928-07:002009-08-11T00:05:52.928-07:00Hi all,
Just in after a long day of travel.
For ...Hi all,<br /><br />Just in after a long day of travel.<br /><br />For the record, I agree with your conclusions. I am a prohibitionist actually. I think our government should bring it back. (I'm not holding my breath.)<br /><br />However, I don't agree with the reasoning by which you arrive at the conclusions.<br /><br />First, Kent:<br /><br />One could argue that the wine being described in Pr 23 is undiluted wine, which is why colour is an issue. One could also argue that the context is clearly talking about drunkenness, tarrying long at the wine, etc, so it is that usage that is under prohibition.<br /><br />My objection to using this argument is that it will not satisfy the critics since it can be argued another way.<br /><br />For the two-wine theory to be convincing, we need clear examples <i>in the Bible</i> that show the word yayin or oinos being used to designate that which is clearly not alcoholic wine.<br /><br />Second, Gary:<br /><br />Isa 16.10 is a possible verse for the two-wine theory, but I don't think it is conclusive. (In other words, I am not throwing it out altogether.) The reason I think it is not conclusive is because there is a tendency to use terms referring to an end product to apply to substances used in the process of production. For example, the wine vat or wine press is so called because wine begins its production in those implements, even though what is actually contained in those implements is almost entirely juice at that point. Thus, though the juice just having been trodden is mostly just juice, it can be called wine because that is where it is headed. This is a normal use of language.<br /><br />Do you see what I am saying? I am not trying to quibble here, simply to note that this passage is inconclusive because of the way language can be used.<br /><br />The verse could be a supporting verse, but not a conclusive verse. We need something more solid than that.<br /><br />The Isa 65.18 passage involves tirosh, as you note. As such I think it is largely irrelevant. If I recall correctly, only one use of tirosh is clearly negative. The others could refer to juice, as this one does.<br /><br />However, tirosh is very little used, especially compared to yayin (and oinos in the NT). So to me bringing tirosh into the discussion is irrelevant.<br /><br />As for Luke 5.37, sorry, but the fermentation process is well started by the time the stuff is being put in wineskins. It may not be as potent as it will get, but it is already started.<br /><br />Now, please remember, I am in agreement with your conclusions and application. No wine, no beer, no hard liquor, no alcohol at any time (except perhaps medicinal use like nyquil). But I don't think that the two-wine argument is convincing.<br /><br />So my argument is established on different grounds, but no less exegetical.<br /><br />Maranatha!<br />Don Johnson<br />Jer 33.3Don Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03332212749734904541noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-43818031483833824562009-08-10T21:10:13.906-07:002009-08-10T21:10:13.906-07:00I agree with Brother Webb on his comments. Good. ...I agree with Brother Webb on his comments. Good. I'm coming back with some stuff on this in part 3.<br /><br />Lisa,<br /><br />Thanks. Very good points you made. I'm glad you love Jesus too!Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-4046890855127631632009-08-10T15:14:21.651-07:002009-08-10T15:14:21.651-07:00I find this extremely interesting Kent. I am no Bi...I find this extremely interesting Kent. I am no Bible scholar...nor can I just take up the greek language or even study it. I am an average wife and mother of 3 who is absoulutely in love with Jesus Christ, my Lord and Savior. The 2 different wine theory honestly makes so much sense to me because I just cannot wrap my mind around the fact that God would encourage anyone to drink anything that would intoxicate their mind even in the slightest bit! If it was not a big deal why didn't he turn the water in the barrels into fermented alcohol. Why make it to where they couldn't become intoxicated. I don't buy the drink a little for good health. There are other ways to stay healthy. If I am wrong on this theory and what I seem to find in scripture...and God does commend or ok alcohol, the verse that talks about not causing others to stumble comes to mind. We live in a day and age that alcohlism is off the charts. Daily families are losing spouses and children to drunk driving or alcohol related issues. My Aunt was just killed last month by a man that was already wanted for killing another woman drunk. My husband lost an uncle for the same reason. Teens drinking is rising day by day....My point is in all this is we live in a day and age where our culture is embracing alcohol and to no end it is warping our nation. We are not of this world nor should we embrace the things of this world. If we cause 1 person 1 person to stumble in this area we have sinned not only against the person but against God. If we lived in any other age maybe this issue would not be such a hot topic but we don't live back in the days of Christ. Things have changed. People change and even Christians have to change...however God's word NEVER changes! I don't understand why christians are so persistant to keep alcohol apart of their life. What if it causes one person , whether they have alcohol issues are not or whether you know them personally or even come into contact with them to turn away from the cross because of your witness. Is it not worth it to just let go of ever sipping another glass of wine. We have to reach the lost. We need to show them that their are better things out their than a drink that will only open doors for the enemy to come in and kill steal and destroy. Again I am not a bible scholar or a debater. I strictly rely on the Holy Spirit and the word of God.Lisahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13895759940519735743noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-21424807617643169942009-08-10T14:42:44.467-07:002009-08-10T14:42:44.467-07:00Don,
Here is one verse that requires that yayin re...Don,<br />Here is one verse that requires that yayin refers to a non-alcoholic juice: Isaiah 16:10. "Treaders" do not tread out fermented wine; they tread out juice.<br />For the word tirosh, Isaiah 65:8 demand juice, because the juice in a grape in a cluster cannot ferment.<br />All the passages that associate wine with the harvest & the winepress would refer to non-alcoholic juice.<br />Of course, in the NT passages like Luke 5:37 indicate that the wine put into the "bottles" was just juice, but then it began to ferment & expand & therefore break the "bottles" (wineskins).<br />There is your scriptural proof.Gary Webbnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-50010603373851651622009-08-10T00:35:16.541-07:002009-08-10T00:35:16.541-07:00One more thing, for scripture not to contradict, d...One more thing, for scripture not to contradict, due to the Proverbs 23:31 text, all alcoholic wine is bad and all non-alcoholic is good. The place where we know it is alcoholic it is said to be always bad when alcoholic. We can interpret the rest in light of this one text.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-26121825969636101672009-08-09T23:54:39.544-07:002009-08-09T23:54:39.544-07:00First Joe, only because it is an easier question. ...First Joe, only because it is an easier question. I'll deal with shekar and shakar in a later post, which is to deal with Deut 14:26.<br /><br />Second, Don.<br /><br />I'm not done with yayin, but I believe this exegetical argument checkmates one wine, unless scripture contradicts itself. If Proverbs 23:31 prohibits alcoholic wine, then Psalm 104:15 cannot be alcoholic wine, unless scripture contradicts itself, and it doesn't. We can't turn to Psalm 104:15 as positive about alcohol if Proverbs 23:31 prohibits it, which it does.<br /><br />Further evidence is coming though. I think that Proverbs 23:31 is the perfect place to start because it is clearly alcoholic wine and it is plainly being prohibited. That is going to alter the way we look at every other usage of yayin.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-24673348017016217762009-08-09T21:04:18.778-07:002009-08-09T21:04:18.778-07:00I hope your series deals with Deu. 14:26. I am a p...I hope your series deals with Deu. 14:26. I am a prohibitionist, and I scratch my. head at that verse. All of the typical prohibitionist literature that I have read has discussed the verses you've mentioned, but I have yet to read an explanation of Deu. 14:26 - a verse the moderationists tend to mention as a check-mate move.<br /><br />Looking forward to the rest of the series.reglerjoehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15850185571444567195noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-52076339144335362242009-08-09T19:59:09.876-07:002009-08-09T19:59:09.876-07:00Kent, I think you are going about this wrong. No o...Kent, I think you are going about this wrong. No one denies that <i>yayin</i> in Pr 23 is alcoholic. What you have to prove is that <i>yayin</i> in Ps 104.15 is not alcoholic. I don't know of any passage where you can clearly exegete that definition. To simply assume that it is not alcoholic if the context gives no tip-offs doesn't make the grade.<br /><br />What I am looking for in work of this sort is a clear passage where <i>yayin</i> cannot mean anything other than something that is non-alcoholic. (Or <i>oinos</i> would be fine also.) I don't know of any such passage.<br /><br />Thus, I think we have to argue our view from different premises. I would like you to be able to prove two wine, but this one just doesn't do it.<br /><br />Maranatha!<br />Don Johnson<br />Jer 33.3Don Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03332212749734904541noreply@blogger.com