1) I did not say ALL scholarly evidence I said the consensus which is what YOU brought up that was supposed to impress me. Don’t try to put words in my mouth.
2) I am a member of an Independent Fundamental Baptist Church, but have not always been so and was not when I studied the subject of biblical versions (in a seminary that was NOT King James only nor did it at any time advocate King James only). How does someone who starts out KJ Only & then moves to accept other versions go to a seminary which does not promote King James come out of it believing more strongly than ever that the King James Bible is the Word of God and other versions are corrupt? Before you dismiss me so easily, I would suggest that you study the subject yourself.
3) From your other comment, the consensus of the scholars for around 1200 years was that justification came by faith plus works and membership in a particular church. Delving into Scripture challenged that view sufficiently that it set the world on end. Scholarly pinheads do not impress when what they say stands against the Word of God.
The challenge was laid out for the pro-alcohol folks to conclusively prove that this is what Jesus used in Scripture. A counter challenge was brought forth to 1)Show 1st century sources that spoke of non-alcoholic grape juice being used in any great degree in the 1st century and 2)Show where the Bible is against the alcoholic variety. I believe I lived up to my end but have seen diddly squat from the pro-we-justify-it-because-we-want-to-drink crowd as to the original challenge. You’re welcome.
Then show me one modern scholarly commentary that agrees with your position.
2) I am a member of an Independent Fundamental Baptist Church, but have not always been so and was not when I studied the subject of biblical versions (in a seminary that was NOT King James only nor did it at any time advocate King James only). How does someone who starts out KJ Only & then moves to accept other versions go to a seminary which does not promote King James come out of it believing more strongly than ever that the King James Bible is the Word of God and other versions are corrupt? Before you dismiss me so easily, I would suggest that you study the subject yourself.
Which seminary did you graduate from? I have studied this deeply and find that the KJV-only arguments lacking. You previously mentioned that the NIV is lacking. But show me where the Hebrew texts of the KJV and the NIV disagree on the verses you've quoted. They don't. The problem for you is that you are basing your readings on your self-imposed interpretation of the English translation from the KJV. The problem here is that even a more literal translation like the NASB doesn't support your positions either.
3) From your other comment, the consensus of the scholars for around 1200 years was that justification came by faith plus works and membership in a particular church. Delving into Scripture challenged that view sufficiently that it set the world on end. Scholarly pinheads do not impress when what they say stands against the Word of God.
This is entirely irrelevant to the discussion. The fact that you talk about "scholarly pinheads" really leads me to believe that you have no formal training in exegesis or textual analysis.
The challenge was laid out for the pro-alcohol folks to conclusively prove that this is what Jesus used in Scripture. A counter challenge was brought forth to 1)Show 1st century sources that spoke of non-alcoholic grape juice being used in any great degree in the 1st century and 2)Show where the Bible is against the alcoholic variety. I believe I lived up to my end but have seen diddly squat from the pro-we-justify-it-because-we-want-to-drink crowd as to the original challenge. You’re welcome.
You're kidding right? All you've proved is that you can pick verses out of context to prove anything you want. My friend, you are intellectually dishonest. The point is that the versus that decry drunkenness cannot logically be taken to prohibit all consumption of alcohol when they are read IN CONTEXT with other verses that discuss the benefits of drinking. You cannot logically rationalize saying these verses condemn all drinking...otherwise you simply have to ignore the verses that speak positively about wine. How do you account for the positive references to alcohol?
Note the following:
The 247 references to wine and strong drink in the Bible can be divided into 3 broad categories: positive references, negative references, and neutral references. We will first summarize these categories and then examine them in detail.
Summary of references to wine in Scripture
On the negative side, there are 17 warnings against abusing alcohol, 19 examples of people abusing alcohol, 3 references to selecting leaders, and one verse advocating abstinence if drinking will cause a brother to stumble. Total negative references: 40, or 16%.
On the positive side, there are 59 references to the commonly accepted practice of drinking wine (and strong drink) with meals, 27 references to the abundance of wine as an example of God's blessing, 20 references to the loss of wine and strong drink as an example of God's curse, 25 references to the use of wine in offerings and sacrifices, 9 references to wine being used as a gift, and 5 metaphorical references to wine as a basis for a favorable comparison. Total positive references: 145, or 59%.
In what could be considered neutral references, there are 33 symbolic references ("the wine of His wrath," etc.), 21 references to vows of abstinence, 4 references to people falsely accused of being drunk, and 4 references which don't seem to fit a category. Total neutral references: 62, or 25%.
Positive references to wine in Scripture
Surprisingly, by far the most numerous type of references to wine in the Bible (58 references, 24%) are casual references to wine as an integral, commonly accepted part of the culture. No value judgement is attached to it, anymore than people in our culture would attach a value judgement to a choice of iced tea or Diet Coke with a meal. These references show that in the minds of the writers of the Bible, no stigma was associated with casual use of alcohol. Nowhere, in these references or elsewhere, is it even remotely suggested that it is considered a sin.
Almost as many times (47 references, 19%) an abundance of wine is used as an example of God's blessing and a lack of wine is used as an example of God's curse. In these references, wine is included along with with milk, wheat, corn, children, oil, sheep, cattle, fowl, rain, silver, and gold as blessings that come from God. Note that silver and gold are included on this list of examples of blessings from God, even though Paul says, "For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil."[6] This seems to indicate that it is not money itself which is evil, but rather that the evil comes from the behavior of those who have elevated money beyond its proper position. We will address the application of this principle to wine later.
There are 25 references (11%) to instructions or examples of the use of wine in offerings and sacrifices. These references seem to establish conclusively that the Bible does not consider wine to be inherently evil, otherwise how could it be used in sacred rituals? Coupled with the fact that Jesus himself chose wine as an essential part of communion, we are forced to conclude that representing alcohol as inherently evil is not a scriptural position.
And finally, nine times wine is mentioned as a gift (along with things like bread, cattle, and sheep) and five times in the Song of Solomon it is used as a basis for favorable comparisons, such as "thy love is better than wine."
Neutral references to wine in Scripture
The verses in this category don't seem to contain any particular positive or negative connotation. They don't characterize wine as being good, but neither do they contain warnings about the dangers posed by wine.
There are 32 symbolic references to wine, used primarily in reference to acts of God[7] or human behavior that is similar to the effects of wine. [8] Most of them could be used as examples of the prevalence of the everyday use of wine, since symbolism frequently draws from familiar images, but it seems more appropriate to consider them as neutral.
The 21 references to vows of abstinence can be separated into two categories: partial abstinence and total abstinence. The Levitical priests were prohibited from drinking wine before going into the temple to perform their duties. However, it is clear that they weren't required to abstain completely since offerings of wine were included along with grain and other goods to financially support the priesthood.
By contrast, the Nazarite vow included a vow of total abstinence from wine and strong drink, along with other signs of being set apart, such as not cutting the hair. This vow was taken by few people and was certainly not something expected of the average person. The other example of total abstinence is the sons of Jonadab, who made a vow to their father that they would never drink wine. Jeremiah attempted to persuade them to drink wine, but they remained true to their vow. According to the commentaries, the sons of Jonadab were used by Jeremiah as an example of faithfulness, a quality which the nation of Israel had lost.
In summary, the vows of abstinence recorded in the Bible were special cases that did not apply to the general population. They are included in the neutral category because abstaining from alcohol for the sake of a vow does not imply that the common use of alcohol is a sin, any more than a vow to not cut the hair implies that cutting hair is a sin.
There are four references to people falsely accused of being drunk: three for Hannah and one at Pentecost. These could possibly be considered negative references, but since there are so few their placement is not important. There are also four references that don't seem to fit a category at all. This number is also too small to significantly affect the outcome.
Negative references to wine in Scripture
All but one of the 40 negative references to alcohol in the Bible concern the abuse of alcohol. There are 17 warnings against abusing alcohol, 19 examples of people abusing alcohol, and three guidelines for selecting leaders. The 3 references to selecting leaders caution that those who abuse alcohol should not be selected as leaders. They use the phrases "not given to much wine," "not given to drunkenness," and "not given to wine." These references indicate that total abstinence is not required or expected of leaders. [9]
Based on the content and number of positive references to alcohol and these 39 negative references, it seems that the scriptural position is an emphasis on moderate use of alcohol with a caution against drunkenness. In light of what the Bible actually says about alcohol, it is surprising that so many conservative Christians treat a prohibitionist position as a scriptural position. However, before we reach any final conclusions we must give full consideration to the remaining reference to wine.