BigO95
Here to bring you peace and joy...
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2015
- Messages
- 9,525
- Likes
- 8,904
I have given you enough proof already that you simple deny. The juice could have easily been preserved after the feast or even been all drank up. You don't have enough details in the story to go any farther with it.
Ahh, so Jesus makes a bunch of grape juice and burdens others with the task of reducing it back down again the next day. What a guy!
The possibility that the guests drank all 3,000 to 4,000 glasses is closed to the grape juice interpretation, since that interpretation must take the servant's statement to mean that the guests are no longer thirsty. That is, they are no longer interested in drinking. The inferior wine, at this point which is usually served, is merely for display, a pretense to show that the hosts have the means to continue to serve grape juice long after nobody else wants any.
The alcoholic wine interpretation does not face this problem. As, now the servant's statement can be quite naturally read as the following: the good wine is served first because the guests senses are not yet dulled and they can fully taste and appreciate this wine. The inferior wine comes later, when the guests still want to drink and carouse, but can no longer distinguish between good and inferior wine. However, you, Jesus, have saved the good wine for last and it is so amazing that these guests, even though they are well drunk, will still be able to appreciate the difference because the separation is so great.
Further, what is left over can easily be finished off over the next few days, as the festivities continue, and, thus, they will be able to appreciate just how great this alcoholic wine is tomorrow.
It's never a burden to get free food or juice when you are in need.
John 2:10 (KJV)
10 And saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now.
Notice, it say's, ' when men have well drunk', not they were well drunk. There's a big difference there.
Also, ancient Jewish wedding feasts often lasted for about a week. Jesus could make wine that would therefore be ready to drink the following day and the day after that and the day after that, or Jesus could make grape juice which, the leftovers would have to be reduced to syrup and then re-upped with water, and this consuming process would have to take place each day over this festival period.
That is, one interpretation gives us a miracle in which Jesus takes action and supplies everyone for the rest of the duration of the festival, such that no work is needed during the festival in order to ensure that they always have drink available on each day; the other interpretation gives us a miracle in which a whole lot of people are going to have to do a whole lot of work.
The only mark against the first interpretation is the reader bringing into the interpretation the baggage that alcohol is bad.
the text was never Changed on the KJV, just grammar. He is able to do the same today, but it's just not necessary seeing we already have a bible in English. Now the trouble with all the new versions is the Greek text that they are translated from.
Also, ancient Jewish wedding feasts often lasted for about a week. Jesus could make wine that would therefore be ready to drink the following day and the day after that and the day after that, or Jesus could make grape juice which, the leftovers would have to be reduced to syrup and then re-upped with water, and this consuming process would have to take place each day over this festival period.
That is, one interpretation gives us a miracle in which Jesus takes action and supplies everyone for the rest of the duration of the festival, such that no work is needed during the festival in order to ensure that they always have drink available on each day; the other interpretation gives us a miracle in which a whole lot of people are going to have to do a whole lot of work.
The only mark against the first interpretation is the reader bringing into the interpretation the baggage that alcohol is bad.
Twist it anyway you please, Gods word is plain against drunkenness. That includes alcohol.
Here's a reminder of thaProverbs 23:29-35 (KJV)
29 Who hath woe? who hath sorrow? who hath contentions? who hath babbling? who hath wounds without cause? who hath redness of eyes?
30 They that tarry long at the wine; they that go to seek mixed wine.
31 Look not thou upon the wine when it is red, when it giveth his colour in the cup, when it moveth itself aright. [ that's the fermenting process]
32 At the last it biteth like a serpent, and stingeth like an adder.
33 Thine eyes shall behold strange women, and thine heart shall utter perverse things.
34 Yea, thou shalt be as he that lieth down in the midst of the sea, or as he that lieth upon the top of a mast.
35 They have stricken me, shalt thou say, and I was not sick; they have beaten me, and I felt it not: when shall I awake? I will seek it yet again.
And, is course, this can't be understood as an admonition against spending too much time thinking about drinking such that it occupies your life and you neglect your duties. Nope, it is literally saying that looking at wine is a sin.
And, of course, that makes perfect sense.
I personally like my logic better than yours and would reasonably believe that you like yours better than mine. There is still the fact that the KJV came from a different pool of manuscripts that the new versions did.
Literally, it says don't look at it.
Sure, alcohol poses risks. As such, wisdom requires taking it seriously. But, that something poses a risk does not and cannot mean that it's a Biblical sin.
The same book (Proverbs) literally says not to look at a whore. He doesn't interpret that one as literal, yet he does per alcohol. That has been pointed out to him before. He's seeking verses to support his preference; not basing his preference on an honest interpretation.
You are still making selections beyond what scripture says of itself. You suffer from your own criticisms.
