Jesus turned water into unfermented wine and not fermented wine.

[SolidGround]

you guys know that S 2561 means 'wine in the foaming process of fermentation'.

A conjugation of it is used at Belshazzar's feast.
Duet 32:14 is talking about wine. Fermented grape juice.


חֶ֫מֶר [SIZE=+1]noun [masculine][/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]wine[/SIZE] (poetry) (Aramaic

חַמְרָא; Arabic

, see Lag[SUP]BN 207[/SUP]) —וְדַםעֵֿנָבתִּשְׁתֶּהחָֿ֑מֶר Deuteronomy 32:14; כֶּרֶם חֶמֶר Isaiah 27:2, but read here כֶּרֶם חֶמֶד (see חֶמֶד).חֲמַר [SIZE=+1]noun masculine[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]wine[/SIZE] (ᵑ7 Syriac; Biblical Hebrewחֶמֶר (in poetry and late), √ I. חמר); — absolute ׳ח Ezra 6:9;Ezra 7:22; emphatic חַמָרָא Daniel 5:1.Daniel 5:2. Daniel 5:4.Daniel 5:23.

 

[JackH]

you guys know that S 2561 means 'wine in the foaming process of fermentation'.

A conjugation of it is used at Belshazzar's feast.
Duet 32:14 is talking about wine. Fermented grape juice.


חֶ֫מֶר[SIZE=+1]noun [masculine][/SIZE][SIZE=+1]wine[/SIZE] (poetry) (Aramaic

חַמְרָא; Arabic

, see Lag[SUP]BN 207[/SUP]) —וְדַםעֵֿנָבתִּשְׁתֶּהחָֿ֑מֶרDeuteronomy 32:14; כֶּרֶם חֶמֶרIsaiah 27:2, but read here כֶּרֶם חֶמֶד (see חֶמֶד).חֲמַר [SIZE=+1]noun masculine[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]wine[/SIZE] (ᵑ7 Syriac; Biblical Hebrewחֶמֶר (in poetry and late), √ I. חמר); — absolute ׳ח Ezra 6:9;Ezra 7:22; emphatic חַמָרָא Daniel 5:1.Daniel 5:2. Daniel 5:4.Daniel 5:23.

So is the beverage being talked here alcoholic or nonalcoholic?

 

[JackH]

Me and "Standing Firm in Christ" both agree on the heart of the issue here. That Jesus did not serve strong alcoholic wine and or contributing in intoxicating a bunch of people who were already drunk.

So you are saying that Jesus served alcoholic wine, but it was not "strong" alcoholic wine. Correct?

What do you consider to be "strong" alcoholic wine? As in, what percent alcohol?

What evidence do you have that the guests at the wedding were already drunk?

Yeah, yeah, I know the KJV says "well drunk." Other translations read "drunk freely" and "drunk abundantly."

You must have more than that to claim the guests were drunk, one would hope.

Wedding feasts at the time of Jesus often lasted a week. Even if the guests had their fill on the day Jesus provided the wine, there is always tomorrow.

 

[JackH]

As for natural wild yeast fermentations:

Yeast Geneticist and Enology Professor at the University of California at Davis believes that, with the exception of a few wineries, the success of native yeast fermentations is anything but “proven” and supports the Department’s recommendation against the practice of uninoculated fermentations. She states, “I do not endorse this practice for several reasons. First, most wineries can ill afford to lose 10-20% of their production. In contrast to other techniques, a bad natural yeast fermentation leads to a wine that is not merely low in quality, but unmarketable.​

In other words, it is not a proven 100% Science. This is important to note because most folks here act like you get alcoholic wine every single time the grapes are crushed.

Source:
Wild Yeast in Winemaking

Back in biblical times, they had to rely on wild yeast. So 10% or whatever of the time they ended up with some "bad" wine. It's not that it wasn't fermented but that it tasted like crap. But you know what, I'll bet you they drank it anyway if they didn't have another option.

You are so confused.

 

[JackH]

Yes, this was speaking of fermented beverage. They didn't drink it. Why not? So they could prove their love for the Lord.

but notice...

Deuteronomy 32:14 (KJV) 14 Butter of kine, and milk of sheep, with fat of lambs, and rams of the breed of Bashan, and goats, with the fat of kidneys of wheat; and thou didst drink the pure blood of the grape.

they drank the pure blood of the grape. What they drank in the wilderness wanderings was grape juice... The unfermented wine found in the cluster.

Are you claiming that they drank absolutely no alcoholic beverages during the 40 years in the wilderness?

 

[JackH]

New Age Translation John 2:9-10 - When the master of the feast had tasted the water that was made grape juice, and did not know where it came from (but the servants who had drawn the water knew) the master of the feast called the bridegroom. And he said to him, "Every man at the beginning sets out the good grape juice, and when the guests have well drunk, then the inferior. You have kept the good grape juice until now!"

I doubt the KJV-ONLY cultists posting here use that translation.

 

[JackH]

I am not going to argue with you

This is a discussion forum. Not a babble-on (Babylon) forum.

You typed plenty of words, but carefully avoided the question I asked in response to your previous post. The question was:

"So, a person who has been born again and mostly faithful to the Word has three beers at a baseball game (quite possibly legally drunk) drives home and is killed when she runs off the road and hits a tree is FOREVER lost?"

What is your response?

 

[Bowman]

So is the beverage being talked here alcoholic or nonalcoholic?

It was near-beer.

 

[JackH]

It was near-beer.

Near-beer tastes like rat piss.

I made that point previously.

Do the taste test, like I have. Odoul's and Guinness.

Is somebody going to tell me the good wine Jesus provided was near-wine and expect me to do anything but snort and snicker?

Tell that to a Jew. Lol.

 

[StandingFirmInChrist]

This is a discussion forum. Not a babble-on (Babylon) forum.

You typed plenty of words, but carefully avoided the question I asked in response to your previous post. The question was:

"So, a person who has been born again and mostly faithful to the Word has three beers at a baseball game (quite possibly legally drunk) drives home and is killed when she runs off the road and hits a tree is FOREVER lost?"

What is your response?

A born again person is not going to drink beer at a baseball game. Such a person that does proves their lost estate.

 

[Warrior777]

This is a discussion forum. Not a babble-on (Babylon) forum.

You typed plenty of words, but carefully avoided the question I asked in response to your previous post. The question was:

"So, a person who has been born again and mostly faithful to the Word has three beers at a baseball game (quite possibly legally drunk) drives home and is killed when she runs off the road and hits a tree is FOREVER lost?"

What is your response?

If you would really read my post with open eyes (and heart), you would have seen that I answered this not only in my own words but with scripture more than once, why are you "babbling-on" wanting the same answer more than once? If you can't understand it ask God to reveal truth to you, but you have to be open for it, otherwise you just won't see or accept it.

 

[JackH]

A born again person is not going to drink beer at a baseball game. Such a person that does proves their lost estate.

.

Thanks a lot.

You made me choke on my beer

 

[Bowman]

Near-beer tastes like rat piss.

I made that point previously.

Do the taste test, like I have. Odoul's and Guinness.

Is somebody going to tell me the good wine Jesus provided was near-wine and expect me to do anything but snort and snicker?

Tell that to a Jew. Lol.

Its clear that Jason & co. are simply trying to test-drive their 'no alcohol' allowed worldview in a backwoods internet forum.

Its also clear they will not be getting a DWI on this topic...

 

[Last]

A born again person is not going to drink beer at a baseball game. Such a person that does proves their lost estate.

Your view is not biblical.

 

[Last]

Yes, this was speaking of fermented beverage. They didn't drink it. Why not? So they could prove their love for the Lord.

but notice...

Deuteronomy 32:14 (KJV) 14 Butter of kine, and milk of sheep, with fat of lambs, and rams of the breed of Bashan, and goats, with the fat of kidneys of wheat; and thou didst drink the pure blood of the grape.

they drank the pure blood of the grape. What they drank in the wilderness wanderings was grape juice... The unfermented wine found in the cluster.

Wine is the blood of the grape. There was no grape juice back then since it naturally ferments.

 

[Last]

You only way you can correct me on wine making facts is by actually providing third party sources from professional wine making sites. You say it, and I am like not going to believe you because you are biased or in favor of wine when you see that word in the Bible.

I am 'biased' with knowledge of wine making. If you feel that I am making something up, please ask me on what exactly you need clarity.

 

[tourist]

Your view is not biblical.

Sound like a killjoy to me, biblically speaking.

 

[Last]

As for natural wild yeast fermentations:

Yeast Geneticist and Enology Professor at the University of California at Davis believes that, with the exception of a few wineries, the success of native yeast fermentations is anything but “proven” and supports the Department’s recommendation against the practice of uninoculated fermentations. She states, “I do not endorse this practice for several reasons. First, most wineries can ill afford to lose 10-20% of their production. In contrast to other techniques, a bad natural yeast fermentation leads to a wine that is not merely low in quality, but unmarketable.​

Source:
Wild Yeast in Winemaking

How does this relate to anything I have said accept to agree with me?

It is saying that using wild yeast is not an economical idea for winemakers today. Of course it is not a good idea! That is why people do not do it anymore. People use carefully selected strains of yeast. Yeast has been 'domesticated'.

In other words, it is not a proven 100% Science. This is important to note because most folks here act like you get alcoholic wine every single time the grapes are crushed.

WRONG - not just wrong by WAY wrong. What was written has nothing to do with the fact that squeezed grape juice naturally ferments. If you squeeze grapes, it will turn into wine.

This is really not a difficult thing and most children readily grasp it. The fact that you are not means that you are willingly refusing to accept basic science.

Non-alcohol wine does not exist naturally. Microbes in the air break down food. That is how nature is set up. People discovered that if you put the grape juice in a sealed jar, the grape juice would become wine instead of becoming spoiled.

 

[tourist]

As for natural wild yeast fermentations:

Yeast Geneticist and Enology Professor at the University of California at Davis believes that, with the exception of a few wineries, the success of native yeast fermentations is anything but “proven” and supports the Department’s recommendation against the practice of uninoculated fermentations. She states, “I do not endorse this practice for several reasons. First, most wineries can ill afford to lose 10-20% of their production. In contrast to other techniques, a bad natural yeast fermentation leads to a wine that is not merely low in quality, but unmarketable.​

In other words, it is not a proven 100% Science. This is important to note because most folks here act like you get alcoholic wine every single time the grapes are crushed.

Source:
Wild Yeast in Winemaking

Jesus turned water into wine at the wedding of Cana. This is a 100% biblical fact. I really don't think that He gives a crap about the sources you quoted because He is the only source worth considering in this topic of discussion.

 

[Last]

Why calling this scripture legalistic?

I am not. I am calling your arguments legalistic.

Why are you afraid of it?

Afraid of what? You making legalistic arguments?

I just merely quoted this scripture, it's self explanatory, did it convict you, since you are attacking it? If you think God is legalistic that is your problem. There is a fear of God, it's healthy, keeps you out of hell!

Is there something wrong with you? You didn't merely quote scripture. You pointed out that scripture has a problem with drunkards and rightfully so. What scripture said we both agree with.

The problem is when you then go on about how one drink might make you drunk, or two drinks, or three drinks. That's legalistic - that same argument can be made about anything. Maybe one burger makes you a glutton. Maybe resting for 20 minutes instead of 10 minutes makes you slothful. Your argument is that you should not do a thing because you might be doing too much of it. Which means you cannot do anything, which would make you lazy. so your point is completely wrong