SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : News and Current Events : Greg Laurie: Is It Acceptable for Christians to Drink?

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 Next Page )
PosterThread









 Re: Fishy Wine

Quote:
It sort of sounds to me as if 'wine' can be translated wine in some reference and grape juice in others? For wine to be wine it has to have some kind of alcoholic content in it. Even a wine cooler has alcohol but not like regular wine. Something seems fishy to me here.

In the Spanish language they use different words for the same word but to put a reference on what it is meaning whereas in the English language it isn't that way. One has to take the word into context to understand it but in Spanish the word tells you by its nature what it refers in conversation. Does Hebrew and Greek not do this? I often think that because English is so one dimensional we mis ALOT but not understand what specific words are supposed to be or refer to. Love has various meaning and in English it isn't easy to understand how it refers in varous contexts. It can be easily taken out of context and so give way to false doctrine. deadn.




If you think what I said sounds fishy read this.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/5027710/Wine-ingredients-including-fish-and-charcoal-should-be-listed-on-the-bottle-say-regulators.html


On a serious note. I have no opinion as to whether a person should drink wine or beer or not. My son James does not, my daughter Sarah does. My granny needs moderating and my wife likes champagne. I don't drink at all. It is a matter of conscience and obedience. Just in case you didn't realise it the English language as spoken in England has the largest vocabulary of any language on earth by a long long way, as a consequence of this limitation to specify precise meaning in a single particle of grammar. Yet this weakness makes for a beautiful possibility to express shades and contours (morphology) of meaning even within a sentence structure which can carry several parallel meanings simultaneously without contradiction of grammatical form or comprehension.

Grammatically English is broadly Latin, with west Germanic, middle French and Greek structures incorporated. Ancient greek as used in the scriptures was a common form of Greek and the grammatical structure is reasonably simple. I have no idea about Hebrew structure at all.

What I shared regarding the meaning of wine as alcoholic or not in the verses cited are subjective in so far as the precise statement is concerned, but implicit in the usage of the words in their original context. Beyond that what can one say?

 2012/12/8 17:27









 Re:

Wine is wine.

The same God that told the prophet Hosea to have intimate relations with the local whore down the street is the same God that changed water into an alcoholic beverage.

What we can't fathom we change. We can't fathom as to why Jesus our beloved Saviour would make something that He saved us from and allow it to be served. We have got to get beyond ourselves. It's not the alcohol that He served that is the thing, see by our own prejudices we are not seeing the whole picture as to why this act was done. It wasn't just mere chance or He felt like doing, this was a sign for that generation that He is the new wine of the Holy Ghost being poured out to them, freely and at the end. The best was saved for the last the host of the feast said which was unheard of as the old was always served after men have had the good stuff. But this was a significant moment, a change in which the Kingdom of God was near at hand and while men were still drinking in the Old, the New was about to be poured out.

We have to see it in that light. If we keep seeing the flesh, than we will always be arguing about what type of wine Jesus changed. Jesus said the same things in His day. They were concerned about washing the outside of the cups and but Jesus was telling them the more important instruction, clean up on the inside. We miss a lot of the spiritual applications when we put all our focus on what we read instead of what we should be hearing. Jesus said, "Let these words sink down into your ears".

 2012/12/8 17:55
jimur
Member



Joined: 2012/6/26
Posts: 88


 Re:

@amrkelly

Great info! You explain this quite well, thanks. OK, so in view of all this, these verses are now in agreement with

Isaiah 65:8 (KJV)
8 Thus saith the LORD, As the new wine is found in the cluster, and one saith, Destroy it not; for a blessing is in it: so will I do for my servants' sakes, that I may not destroy them all.

Obviously there can be no fermentation in the cluster prior to crushing the grapes so we find another Hebrew word ‏(tiyrosh)? Which would be new, unfermented juice correct? It would now appear we have established a pretty sound primus that within the English translations, the word WINE can and does refer to both fermented as well as unfermented drink and one is sinful while the other is not.

@DEADn

As you see, others here can answer your question much better. I'm just beginning with a very tiny bit of Hebrew and a little Greek, perhaps I should learn some Spanish as well. LOL but consider also our Lord's discourse with Peter and the use of the word lovest, two different words in the Greek with two very different meanings translated to the same English word in John 21:15-17.

 2012/12/8 18:23Profile
jimur
Member



Joined: 2012/6/26
Posts: 88


 Re:

Approved

QUOTE:

"What we can't fathom we change. We can't fathom as to why Jesus our beloved Saviour would make something that He saved us from and allow it to be served. We have got to get beyond ourselves. It's not the alcohol that He served that is the thing, see by our own prejudices we are not seeing the whole picture as to why this act was done. It wasn't just mere chance or He felt like doing, this was a sign for that generation that He is the new wine of the Holy Ghost being poured out to them, freely and at the end. The best was saved for the last the host of the feast said which was unheard of as the old was always served after men have had the good stuff. But this was a significant moment, a change in which the Kingdom of God was near at hand and while men were still drinking in the Old, the New was about to be poured out". END QUOTE

Can you clarify this? It seems you are stating "while men were still drinking in the Old, the New was about to be poured out". Yet in the explanation there appears to be no difference between the old and the new.

You are correct of course. I for one "can't fathom as to why Jesus our beloved Saviour would make something that He saved us from and allow it to be served". I pray it is not due to not getting beyond myself. I come here, read, post to ask questions at times, in order to help accomplish getting beyond myself. I firmly believe "We have got to get beyond ourselves". Obviously you believe it as well. Correct? I also agree, at times "by our own prejudices we are not seeing the whole picture" thus the discussions.

"If we keep seeing the flesh, then we will always be arguing about what type of wine Jesus changed".

I agree, my point exactly, if we keep seeing in the flesh. I think it a wonderful blessing we have a place such as this to share ideas on scripture in which to combat, without argument, seeing in the flesh. Isn't it a shame there are places, even in the USA where the open sincere discussion of Holy Scripture is not allowed?

 2012/12/8 20:21Profile
jimp
Member



Joined: 2005/6/18
Posts: 1481


 Re:

hi, i am a man who grew up with a mom who became a fall down drunk.i have seen the results of booze up close and personal. i do not see much positives gained from drinking. that said :the jews drank wine that was fermented.harvest times were the only time you could drinl grape juice.they stored thejuice in containers and drank from the top avoiding the lees.they put wine in skins.the alc. that was in the wine killed the bacteria that caused sickness.there was no pastorization in bible days.jimp

 2012/12/8 20:23Profile









 Re: Greg Laurie: Is It Acceptable for Christians to Drink?

Quote:
Isaiah 65:8 (KJV) 
8 Thus saith the LORD, As the new wine is found in the cluster, and one saith, Destroy it not; for a blessing is in it: so will I do for my servants' sakes, that I may not destroy them all. jimur.




כֹּ֣ה׀ אָמַ֣ר יְהוָ֗ה כַּאֲשֶׁ֨ר יִמָּצֵ֤א הַתִּירוֹשׁ֙ בָּֽאֶשְׁכּ֔וֹל וְאָמַר֙ אַל־תַּשְׁחִיתֵ֔הוּ כִּ֥י בְרָכָ֖ה בּ֑וֹ כֵּ֤ן אֶֽעֱשֶׂה֙ לְמַ֣עַן עֲבָדַ֔י לְבִלְתִּ֖י הַֽשְׁחִ֥ית הַכֹּֽל׃


הַתִּירוֹשׁ֙

tiyrowsh, tiyrosh = from the root meaning to expel or freshly press translated “new wine”

בָּֽאֶשְׁכּ֔וֹל

eshkowl, ʾeshkol translated “cluster”

As a rational statement, “As the new wine is found in the cluster” there is an inference that freshly expelled juice from the grape makes for new wine. But this may not be the major predicative mood or intended meaning. The statement is literally true rationally but the semantic inference may be more important than the literal rational meaning. One could not make new wine from grapes which have been crushed months ago and left to ferment. New wine can only come from a cluster of grapes which are still in tact. I have to be honest and share with you that I don’t put much store by grammatical exegesis done in this way. The reason is that trans-literal exegesis can easily misrepresent the actual meaning intended by the Lord. Not only of the source passage but its intended target as well. In this case Isaiah 65:8 and John 2:9 respectively.

Clearly in this verse the word destroy appears twice. One in the semantic context of a cluster of grapes yet the word is “destroy it not.” The “it” however as the principle object may be the “blessing” which is in the grapes which form the cluster. The “it” is singular by reason of the cluster, but the intentional meaning is a blessing. The outcome of obedience to this command is “so I will not destroy them”. The “them” being “my” servants. The meaning of this verse lies in the narrative between these two.

I don’t say the literal meaning of the rational part of the passage isn’t actually true, clearly it is literally true. But it may not be appropriate to divide the Word in this way simply to “prove” another passage or meaning. I may be wrong. I guess one would have to ask what the fuller meaning of the verse is and therefore whether it is possible to use the Scripture in that way. To me it seems like a difference between dividing and rightly dividing. One thing is for certain. The John 2:9 is concerned with wine and crushed grapes of necessity. This passage or verse is a command not to crush the grapes, but to preserve them in tact. I am always very nervous of making these cross scriptural links. It may lead to many errors and wrong ideas. The very root of this subject is a first for me. I have never thought to look into it before or seen the greek meanings drawn out as I have done here. But it wont change my mind just yet that a believer cannot drink alcohol because I have seen that in the greek their is a distinction between new wine and sweet wine. Despite saying this my first pastor always said that the water into wine was grape juice and I always doubted it because of the accusation Jesus had made against Him. Just for a moment here I think I nearly believed my old pastor. Mmm. Blessings.

 2012/12/8 20:47
jimur
Member



Joined: 2012/6/26
Posts: 88


 Re:

amrkelly

QUOTE: I don’t say the literal meaning of the rational part of the passage isn’t actually true, clearly it is literally true. But it may not be appropriate to divide the Word in this way simply to “prove” another passage or meaning. I may be wrong. I guess one would have to ask what the fuller meaning of the verse is and therefore whether it is possible to use the Scripture in that way. To me it seems like a difference between dividing and rightly dividing. One thing is for certain. The John 2:9 is concerned with wine and crushed grapes of necessity. This passage or verse is a command not to crush the grapes, but to preserve them in tact. I am always very nervous of making these cross scriptural links. It may lead to many errors and wrong ideas. The very root of this subject is a first for me. I have never thought to look into it before or seen the greek meanings drawn out as I have done here. But it wont change my mind just yet that a believer cannot drink alcohol because I have seen that in the greek their is a distinction between new wine and sweet wine. Despite saying this my first pastor always said that the water into wine was grape juice and I always doubted it because of the accusation Jesus had made against Him. Just for a moment here I think I nearly believed my old pastor. Mmm. Blessings. END QUOTE


An excellent perspective! Logical, not at all assuming or unsound, and certainly worthy. Some of this I have not really considered and must give some additional thought and prayer. I suppose we could also apply this same reasoning to Isa 16:10 where the word yayin is used. I haven't studied the verses in Hosea and a couple of other places. At this point in my Christian maturity, (or lack thereof), I tend to agree with your former pastor. However I do have uncertainty of the relationship of the Hebrew yayin as discussed and it's possible or probable relationship to the Greek oinos used in John 2 . The key may be in this and a perceived or otherwise difference between new wine and sweet wine in the NT Greek as you mentioned earlier.

I must thank you again as this discussion is very beneficial to me in several ways. You might consider yourself fortunate to not be a near neighbor. I most likely would prove bothersome to you were that the case. LOL

 2012/12/9 9:45Profile









 Re: A final participation!

Brother jimur

There is a way of looking into this linguistic comparative between meanings in the Old and New Testament in greek itself. This approach does represent difficulties because although the New Testament is also written in common greek it really is common greek and was written with a mind to be accessible to the general population of Hellenistic linguistic influence.

The Septuaginta is a translation of the Old Testament made in the 3rd century BC with greek speaking Jews in mind, by Jewish scholars of the original Hebrew text. The translation however is linguistically schematic in that although it is written in common greek of the same linguistic semantic influence as the New Testament it is a literal and more formal translation. I assume that this reflects the Jewish Rabbis and Scribes who carried out the work in that they would have been desirous of a more accurate rendering of the Hebrew semantic than they would have been assertive of greek vulgarisms which are reflective of the greek of the New Testament. The seeming link is in that they are both said to be Koine or common greek, yet there is a significant difference in the way the language was used. The Septuaginta was not written for the greek, but the Jew.

An example of this might be seen by comparing the English parallel translation, the Septuaginta and a passage from the new testament which alludes to the same English parallel translation of the Septuaginta and the New Testament equivalence as well as the original Hebrew text.

For example:

Isaiah 65:8 (Septuaginta).

Οὕτως λέγει κύριος Ὃν τρόπον εὑρεθήσεται ὁ ῥὼξ ἐν τῷ βότρυι καὶ ἐροῦσιν Μὴ λυμήνῃ αὐτὸν ὅτι εὐλογία κυρίου ἐστὶν ἐν αὐτῷ, οὕτως ποιήσω ἕνεκεν τοῦ δουλεύοντός μοι, τούτου ἕνεκεν οὐ μὴ ἀπολέσω πάντας

Septuaginta English translation Isaiah 65:8

Thus saith the Lord, As a grape-stone shall be found in the cluster, and they shall say, Destroy it not; for a blessing is in it: so will I do for the sake of him that serves me, for his sake I will not destroy them all.

Isaiah 65:8 Hebrew

כֹּ֣ה׀ אָמַ֣ר יְהוָ֗ה כַּאֲשֶׁ֨ר יִמָּצֵ֤א הַתִּירוֹשׁ֙ בָּֽאֶשְׁכּ֔וֹל וְאָמַר֙ אַל־תַּשְׁחִיתֵ֔הוּ כִּ֥י בְרָכָ֖ה בּ֑וֹ כֵּ֤ן אֶֽעֱשֶׂה֙ לְמַ֣עַן עֲבָדַ֔י לְבִלְתִּ֖י הַֽשְׁחִ֥ית הַכֹּֽל׃

Comparative New Testament text John 2:9

ως δε εγευσατο ο αρχιτρικλινος το υδωρ οινον γεγενημενον και ουκ ηδει ποθεν εστιν οι δε διακονοι ηδεισαν οι ηντληκοτες το υδωρ φωνει τον νυμφιον ο αρχιτρικλινος


The common terms we are concerned with are wine and grapes.

In the Septuaginta the word translated into English is grape stone, but in the actual greek it can be used as berry or grape or even a cleft. The actual greek word ῥώξ is inflected to mean fallen from the vine. Semantically it carries the meaning of a fruit which has become so mature in season that it falls to the ground. It does not need to be cut from the vine because in maturity it has fallen to the ground in order to remove the outer garment of the flesh of the fruit and reveal the seed which itself is where the blessing lies and the true increase. It is a sense of fullness and increase. We would say its a good and full fruit.

This conceptually carries to the whole passage of Isaiah 65:8 where the command is not to crush the fruit. If the fruit is crushed prematurely it will in the end not prove to be a blessing. It may well make new wine, but it cannot become a full and profitable fruit for the Lord’s purposes. “So will I do for my servants sake” is parallel in meaning to “Destroy it not” in the same verse Isaiah 65:8. So The passage may be saying saying "do not destroy the growth or development of the fruit of the vine because [I] will not destroy the fruit of the vine if [I] find just one individual to serve [Me] faithfully. It carries the sense of “abide in Me and you will bear much fruit” and at the same time it is a warning not to destroy the fruit of the vine. This is incredibly pertinent because we can both destroy ourselves as an individual fruit by continuous sin and others may seek to destroy us by lording it over us. The emphatic meaning is we are many members, one body and we are grafter into the true vine which is Christ.

A possible secondary and more literal meaning pertains to the seed which is in the grape, even as the grape is within the bunch. If just one grape has within it the obedience to mature it will fall to the ground and dying it will bear much fruit. The sparing of the Lord’s hand not to destroy the whole bunch is a reflection of the obedience of this one seed. This is like the Lord seeking just one man to stand in the way of His wrath and cry mercy mercy. Or else it is like God seeking for just one righteous man so that He can stay His hand from destroying a city (Sodom). Just to make sense of this correlation whilst “righteous Lot” lived in the city he is a picture of the church in the world. What God was looking for in Sodom was a righteous man other than Lot because Lot is in the city but not off the city. Abram should not have taken his nephew with him in the first place. Lot is a picture of being in the world, but not of the world.

You can see why you have to be so careful in these studies and not take an academic approach to understanding, but let the Lord Himself teach us by the Spirit.

In John 2:9 is the greek word οινον and really does mean new wine.

If one were to continue the deeper meaning of these things to their reasonable conclusion one would have to say that the miracle of the water into wine has nothing to do with alcohol or not, but in fact it speaks about the bruising of the true Seed in the removal of the body of [His] flesh, as promised in Genesis, resulting in the shedding of His blood for all men. There is always a greater and a lesser meaning. How wonderful is the word of God.

Rationally it is water into wine and it is new wine. But its meaning must be greater than seeking to prove a mans consciousness. It must always come back to ones own willingness to be the one seed in your day, house, church, city or nation. Blessings.

Your heart in this brother has been such a blessing to me also. I am only just come back to the original languages after many years away from them. But I realise in this little exercise what a blessing it is if we really desire to serve God.

 2012/12/9 14:49
jimur
Member



Joined: 2012/6/26
Posts: 88


 Re:

jimp

QUOTE
:the Jews drank wine that was fermented.harvest times were the only time you could drinl grape juice.they stored thejuice in containers and drank from the top avoiding the lees.they put wine in skins.the alc. that was in the wine killed the bacteria that caused sickness.there was no pastorization in bible days.jimp END QUOTE


An interesting thought and rightfully included here. Certainly the preservation of fruits and other produce was a difficult task to say the least. However, the idea that it was impossible is some what erroneous. Although there are others the works of two early writers, Josephus and
perhaps lesser known here, Columella addressed the issue. Josephus claimed Jews in Masada were able to keep fruit fresh for about a hundred years. That is questionable and very highly unlikely if not impossible. Still his account indicates they could accomplish it for a lengthy time period if only months. On the other hand, Columella who is considered a major, if not the most important classical writer of the first century Roman Empire on such subjects offers in great detail methods used at the time to accomplish the task of preservation of such things as fruit and other produce as well as grape juice. I have only a passive knowledge of his treatise but an on line search might produce detailed information. Some of the methods he addresses are rather involved and shows a good deal of innovation and determination on the part of those who would have been at the time interested in such preservation.
All things are not as cut and dry as we might prefer.

 2012/12/10 8:00Profile









 Re:

I find it interesting that this debate over alcohol seems to be an American phenomenon. I’ve known European Christians and missionaries to Europe, and this debate over alcohol in the American church does not seem to be nearly as intense there. The “tolerance movement” (which was anything BUT tolerant) in America in the late 1800’s, hitting it’s apex with Billy Sunday and the Prohibition Era profoundly changed the American church’s views on alcohol. As we know, Prohibition was a colossal failure because the government and the “Christian Tolerance” movement tried to change people’s behavior without changing their hearts. That is a failure any time it is tried.

What it did succeed in doing was entrenching “total abstinence” into the mindset of the church. While there were many in the church previously who did abstain from alcohol, there were many who it never entered their mind that the moderate consumption of alcohol might be a sin. Mainly because that’s not what the Bible teaches.

Point being, in the American church the prevailing attitude (total abstinence) can be directly traced back to the 1800’s and Prohibition… and not necessary the Bible because total abstinence is not taught or commanded in the Bible.

Again, not saying everyone should go buy a bottle of wine!! Just saying that if the BIBLE doesn’t prohibit it… then we should not either.

Krispy

 2012/12/10 8:39





©2002-2020 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Affiliate Disclosure | Privacy Policy