Okay, so I'm cutting out the whole debate on alcohol use all together, leaving just about 2% of everything you said. I wouldn't even ask this had you not said it twice, so it sounds like this is very important to you. So, here's the question:
Does that verse mean less just because it was private to Tim?
It sounds like you're discounting a Bible verse here, just because it was a little friend-to-friend sentence in a largely important letter. But, if that's true, (which I highly doubt, knowing you enough to know you're not simply dismissing something in the Bible), then how does that fit in with your beliefs on scriptural?
And really really I'm not saying you are dismissing this verse. I can't imagine you doing that. But it really sounds like it since you wrote it's only a private letter twice. So, I'm just asking what you really meant there, knowing that can't possibly be what you really meant.
(Did you really get my intent? Sometimes I overuse the word "really." lol But this seemed to require an abundance of that word.)
Part of good biblical exegetics requires taking the verse in context. So that means not only in context of the passage and the book, but the time, and who it was written to.
We have absolutely no idea if Paul was just being specific to Timothy or if it was even red wine. There has been a huge amount of breeding of grapes for wine over the centuries, so perhaps this ancient version of wine did not have any of this key component, resveratrol.
Plus, if you really want to take the verse at its meaning, he is not telling Timothy to take some wine to keep in shape, he is actually telling him to take some wine for his stomach. (Not the abs!). Today, alcohol can be very hard on the stomach, so perhaps this was some form of grape juice. The Greek actually is the same word for wine as grape juice. (Hebrew has both words)
So it bugs me to death, that someone takes a sensationalist article, tacks a Bible verse onto it and implies there is a connection. That is a BIG exegetical stretch. Especially when the actual study didn't even use wine, and cites clearly that some fruits and nuts also have resveratrol in them.
So I am meaning that this OP was bad exegetics, bad science and just generally sensationalistic. So really, really! The need for a few posts of correction.
Besides, it is also bad exegetics to make a doctrine out of one verse, always! Really!
And I am not dismissing this Scripture in any way. But to make the jump from "a little wine for your stomach" to getting in shape with wine strains the text, the meaning and the intent of the passage. Esp. since the article in question was just a hook to get people to justify drinking and actually had NO connection to the Bible verse either.
