We do many things not "specifically permited" by Scripture; this is not an arguement for or against any practice.

Scripture permits drinking by default, ie: by making rules against the use of alcohol on certain occasions or for specific reasons (Nazarine vows, for example), by implication this allows drinking at other times.

Proverbs 20:1 Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging, and whoever goes astray by it is not wise.

Drinking alcohol wasn't permitted during the Day of Atonement.

And Nazirites may foreshadow the 144,000.

This is interesting as it shows how strong drink was part of the daily offering to God. (I guess it is regarded better to offer strong drink to God than to drink it, though it also proves that strong drink is "clean" food as nothing unclean was permissible to be offered to God.)

Rosangela,

The solution is simple enough. We juste have to decide that in our opinion, the texts quoted above are among those texts which were made obsolete together with the Jerusalem temple some 2000 years ago.

It is also important to realize that there were some rules in the OT which didn't express God's will in relation to a given subject, but were just dispositions to regulate less-than-ideal practices which already existed among the people, like polygamy, divorce, etc. This might be also true of alcoholic beverages.

Numbers 28:7 MKJV and its drink offering shall be the fourth of a hin for the one lamb. Pour a drink offering of strong drink to Jehovah in the holy place.

kland, your bouncing all over the place. Try to focus. Scripture does not prohibit alcohol; why do we?

So far no one has given any benefit from drinking alcohol.

Shall we destroy our temple and it not be sin?

If you take the time to google “benefits of drinking alcohol” you will find “The benefits of alcohol consumption have long been known. The Bible refers to alcohol's medicinal properties no less than 191 times.

Alcohol is beneficial in controlling the following conditions

From the article quoted:

Vaster, Ellen White says that there are at least appear to be short term benefits from taking drugs. One could then argue that under certain circumstances one should use drugs. But, if there are no benefits from taking drugs, you couldn't ever argue that. Some say taking shark cartilage gives benefits. Therefore, one could argue the they should take it. However, if there are no benefits and only harm, could they argue they should take it?

She also says that all drugs are harmful in spite of their short term appearing benefits. I don't do drugs whether it's alcohol, smoking, medical, or otherwise.

Now, if I had an accident, I would do drugs at a minimal amount knowing full well they were harmful, but the benefit of recovering would outweigh it. Therefore, I could argue there are certain rare cases where it's ok to take drugs even if they are harmful. Those promoting vaccines would likewise say the same excepting that is a non-emergency supposed benefit from some supposed future anticipated event. Similarly, I would not take any poison for cancer treatments.

? This doesn't seem to be true in Loma Linda. The truth is, all those benefits mentioned in the article should be achieved through a good lifestyle, not through alcohol.

So far no one has given any benefit from drinking alcohol.

The point is that there are benefits from alcohol.

..."Studies have shown that wine can be beneficial to health,..." So I guess it is true, even at Loma Linda.

No one is saying rush out and start drinking. If you don't drink, don't start. If you are pregnant, don't drink. If other health issues, don't drink. But there are health benefits, just be reasonable and moderate.

Are we talking about alcohol or wine?

Unfortunately the texts used to support this are misapplied. (1 Cor. 3:16; 6:19; and 2 Cor. 6:16) They do not refer to food or alcohol, but to divisions in the church (1 Cor. 3:16), joining oneself with a prostitute (1 Cor. 6:19), and “being yoked with unbelievers” (2 Cor. 6:16)

Yes, there have been quite a few.

The findings indicate that one likely positive benefit of moderate ethanol consumption is to diminish the production of fibrinogen, which reduces the potential risk exerted by this protein. The site of action of ethanol is, at least in part, exerted at the level of gene transcription.

In which case, one could then argue the benefits of drinking alcohol in spite of what the Bible says.

How much fermented beverage can a person consume without impairing their judgment and reducing their ability and desire to resist certain temptations?

Is it possible to slowly build up a tolerance to one small glass per day without endangering themselves in the process?

6. Total Abstinence Our Position

The Only Safe Course.--The only safe course is to touch not, taste not, handle not, tea, coffee, wines, tobacco, opium, and alcoholic drinks. The necessity for the men of this generation to call to their aid the power of the will, strengthened by the grace of God, in order to withstand the temptations of Satan and resist the least indulgence of perverted appetite is twice as great as it was several generations ago. But the present generation have less power of self-control than had those who lived then.--Testimonies, vol. 3, p. 488. {Te 163.3}

Let us never partake of a glass of alcoholic liquor. Let us never touch it.--Manuscript 38 1/2, 1905. {Te 163.4}

The Will to Touch Not, Taste Not, and Handle Not.--If all would be vigilant and faithful in guarding the little openings made by the moderate use of the so-called harmless wine and cider, the highway to drunkenness would be closed up. What is needed in every community is firm purpose, and a will to touch not, taste not, handle not; then the temperance reformation would be strong, permanent, and thorough.-- Review and Herald, March 25, 1884. {Te 163.5}

Abstain strictly from all stimulating food or drink. You are God's property. You are not to abuse any organ of the body. You are to care wisely for your body, that there may be a perfect development of the whole man. Is it not an act of ingratitude on your part to do anything so to weaken your vital forces that you are unable properly to represent Him or to do the work He has for you to do?--Letter 236, 1903. {Te 164.1}

Temperance Principles Stem From God's Law.--If men strictly and conscientiously kept the law of God, there would be no drunkards, no tobacco inebriates, no distress, penury, and crime. Liquor saloons would be closed for want of patronage, and nine tenths of all misery existing in the world would come to an end. Young men would walk forth with erect and noble forms, free and elastic step, clear eye, and healthy complexions. {Te 164.2}

When ministers, from their pulpits, make loyalty to the law of God disreputable; when they join with the world in making it unpopular; when these teachers of the people indulge in the social glass, and the defiling narcotic, tobacco, what depth of vice may not be expected from the youth of this generation? ... You have heard much in regard to the authority and sanctity of the law of the Ten Commandments. God is the author of that law, which is the foundation of His government in heaven and on earth. All enlightened nations have based their laws upon this grand foundation of all law; yet the legislators and ministers, who are recognized as the leaders and teachers of the people, live in open violation of the principles inculcated in those holy statutes. {Te 164.3}

Many ministers preach Christ from the pulpit, and then do not hesitate to benumb their senses by wine tippling, or even indulging in brandy and other liquors. The Christian standard says, "Touch not; taste not; handle not;" and the laws of our physical being repeat the solemn injunction with emphasis. It is the duty of every Christian minister to lay this truth plainly before his people, teaching it both by precept and example. . . . {Te 164.4}

The Christian church is pronounced to be the salt of the earth, the light of the world. Can we apply this to the churches of today, many of whose members are using, not only the defiling narcotic, tobacco, but intoxicating wine, and spirituous liquor, and are placing the wine cup to their neighbor's lips? The church of Christ should be a school in which the inexperienced youth should be educated to control their appetites, from a moral and religious standpoint. They should there be taught how unsafe it is to tamper with temptation, to dally with sin; that there is no such thing as being a moderate and temperate drinker; that the path of the tippler is ever downward. They should be exhorted to "look not thou upon the wine when it is red," which "at the last biteth like a serpent, and stingeth like an adder."--Signs of the Times, Aug. 29, 1878. {Te 165.1}

Total Abstinence Our Platform.--When temperance is presented as a part of the gospel, many will see their need of reform. They will see the evil of intoxicating liquors and that total abstinence is the only platform on which God's people can conscientiously stand.--Testimonies, vol. 7, p. 75. {Te 165.2}

I don't think the Bible says that drinking wine is bad for your health, so I don't, even if this were true, that such an argument could be made.

So when you made the comment that God expressly forbids alcohol, you had in mind the SOP statement from Con 81.2?

That's just the point, MM. God DOES NOT expressly forbid alcohol. In fact, the opposite appears to be the case, as long as it is used responsibly and in moderation.

Would someone here say to their children that it's OK to drink alcohol and that God approves of it?

MM: Perhaps a better way of expressing that would be to say that EGW is putting words in God's mouth, because I cannot find a single example in Scripture of God "expressly forbiding" the use of alcohol.

Please, if you find one, let me know.

If God approves it, and it is beneficial to health, I can see it is the conclusion one must come to. In fact, it would be child abuse for not enabling your children to have all the benefits of alcohol consumption.

There are several passages that strongly imply God forbids drinking alcoholic beverages. The fact Jesus refused to drink it suggests we should too.

Also, consider the logical consequence of those who want to use this passage [John 2:1-11] to justify the consumption of alcoholic beverages. Their argument goes something like this: "Since Jesus produced alcoholic wine, then it is morally right for a person to drink it." However, notice that their logic takes them further than most of them want to go. Since Jesus produced alcoholic wine (as they claim), then not only would it be morally right to drink it, it would be morally right to produce it, sell it, distribute it, and make a living from it. But since that would most certainly cause someone to stumble, then it must be morally right to cause someone to stumble. However, the logical consequence of their argument would oppose the Lord's teaching (Luke 17:1-2).

MM: Two points strike me as interesting:

1) In order to support your assertion that God has forbidden alcohol, you must turn to EGW, and have not provided a single reference from Scripture.

2) Ye err, in that ye know not Scripture. Read Matthew 11:18,19. Here Jesus says: "John came neither eating nor drinking and you say he has a demon. I come eating and drinking, and you say I am a glutton and a drunk."

What was John not drinking? Wine. (See Luke 1:15) Therefore, what was Jesus drinking? Wine. He himself said they called him a drunkard.

The wine which Christ provided for the feast, and that which He gave to the disciples as a symbol of His own blood, was the pure juice of the grape. To this the prophet Isaiah refers when he speaks of the new wine "in the cluster," and says, "Destroy it not; for a blessing is in it." Isaiah 65:8. {DA 149.3}

The Bible nowhere sanctions the use of intoxicating wine. The wine that Christ made from water at the marriage feast of Cana was the pure juice of the grape. This is the "new wine . . . found in the cluster," of which the Scripture says, "Destroy it not; for a blessing is in it." Isaiah 65:8. {Te 97.1}

It was Christ who, in the Old Testament, gave the warning to Israel, "Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging: and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise." Proverbs 20:1. He Himself provided no such beverage. Satan tempts men to indulgence that will becloud reason and benumb the spiritual perceptions, but Christ teaches us to bring the lower nature into subjection. He never places before men that which would be a temptation. His whole life was an example of self-denial. It was to break the power of appetite that in the forty days' fast in the wilderness He suffered in our behalf the severest test that humanity could endure. It was Christ who directed that John the Baptist should drink neither wine nor strong drink. It was He who enjoined similar abstinence upon the wife of Manoah. Christ did not contradict His own teaching. The unfermented wine that He provided for the wedding guests was a wholesome and refreshing drink. This is the wine that was used by our Saviour and His disciples in the first Communion. It is the wine that should always be used on the Communion table as a symbol of the Saviour's blood. The sacramental service is designed to be soul-refreshing and life-giving. There is to be connected with it nothing that could minister to evil.--The Ministry of Healing, pages 333, 334. {Te 97.2}

Wine Recommended in Bible Not Intoxicating.--The Bible nowhere teaches the use of intoxicating wine, either as a beverage or as a symbol of the blood of Christ. We appeal to the natural reason whether the blood of Christ is better represented by the pure juice of the grape in its natural state, or after it has been converted into a fermented and intoxicating wine. . . . We urge that the latter should never be placed upon the Lord's table. . . . We protest that Christ never made intoxicating wine; such an act would have been contrary to all the teachings and example of His life. . . . The wine which Christ manufactured from water by a miracle of His power, was the pure juice of the grape.--Signs of the Times, Aug. 29, 1878. {Te 97.3}

Do you agree with Ellen's application of the passage she quoted?

Also, do you agree with the following inspired insights:

MM: Perhaps a better way of expressing that would be to say that EGW is putting words in God's mouth, because I cannot find a single example in Scripture of God "expressly forbiding" the use of alcohol.

Please, if you find one, let me know.

"And the Lord spake unto Aaron, saying, Do not drink wine nor strong drink, thou, nor thy sons with thee, when ye go into the tabernacle of the congregation, lest ye die: it shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations: and that ye may put difference between holy and unholy, and between unclean and clean; and that ye may teach the children of Israel all the statutes which the Lord hath spoken unto them by the hand of Moses."

PS - JAK, do you trust your understanding and application of Scripture more than you do Ellen's?

So, if God doesn't "expressly forbid" something, that means there is nothing wrong with it?

Does the same go for smoking? Do you see anything wrong with it?

kland, I perceive thou art a classic SDA: One extreme or the other, no middle ground.

You ask "What's wrong with smoking?" From a salvation perspective - nothing. We are saved by grace, through faith. Ephesians 2:8 From a health perspective - lots. It'll kill you.

M: JAK, there are texts that clearly forbid consuming alcohol. There are none that clearly say it's okay. And, yes, there are some that seem to imply it's okay. A modern-day messenger of the Lord says God expressly forbids it. Logic demands leaning on the side of concluding drinking alcohol is always forbidden.

J: MM, despite adamant insistance, no texts have been produced. The argument is unsupported.

Also, having in view the example we as adults set to our children and the example we as Christians set to non-Christians, I don't know how a Christian can consume alcohol "to the glory of God".

M: JAK, there are texts that clearly forbid consuming alcohol. There are none that clearly say it's okay. And, yes, there are some that seem to imply it's okay. A modern-day messenger of the Lord says God expressly forbids it. Logic demands leaning on the side of concluding drinking alcohol is always forbidden.

J: MM, despite adamant insistance, no texts have been produced. The argument is unsupported.

MM: JAK, there are texts that clearly forbid consuming alcohol.

The quotes I posted earlier contained several texts.

Also, you said "no texts have been produced" to support divine prohibition. But you yourself admitted that God prohibits the use of alcohol for certain people and at certain times and in certain places.

The onus is upon you, therefore, to produce texts that plainly permit the use of alcohol for certain people and at certain times and in certain places. Texts that seem to imply it does not cut it.

JAK, there are texts that clearly forbid consuming alcohol. There are none that clearly say it's okay.

The Hebrews drank. Period.

What is the thrust of the argument?

I'm not suprised that you ask this.

Going back to Daryl's initial question, "Is it OK for a Christian to drink alcohol?" my opinion is that from a theological perspective, yes; Scripture does not prohibit drinking alcohol

The rules for one situation do not always apply directly to another situation. It would be narrow minded and dull to think so. A man having sex with his daughter is not specifically prohibited by Scripture. (Noah and Lot come to mind...) Does that mean it is OK?

We're talking about alcohol, not slavery, incest, the drug trade, or smoking, or anything else. And, I assume, we are talking about salvation. So, from a salvation perspective, yes, it is OK to own slaves. (I'm sure somebody on this forum is going to twist this.) Many Biblical patriarchs owned slaves, right up to the time of Paul.

Why don't we apply these same prohibitions to sex? Look at all the emotional problems and ruined lives cause by incest, date rape, and sex abuse. (RC priests come to mind) Because a few people cannot control their twisted sex drives let's all just ban sex entirely and make sex of any kind a sin.

The argument that alcohol has benefits also isn't valid because this isn't true for most people - just for males over 40. Besides, even for these, no study has yet been made about the benefits of alcohol vis-a-vis its risks.
Then what are the arguments in favor of the consumption of alcohol?

A man having sex with his daughter is not specifically prohibited by Scripture. (Noah and Lot come to mind...) Does that mean it is OK?

So, from a salvation perspective, yes, it is OK to own slaves.

Why don't we apply these same prohibitions to sex? Look at all the emotional problems and ruined lives cause by incest, date rape, and sex abuse. (RC priests come to mind) Because a few people cannot control their twisted sex drives let's all just ban sex entirely and make sex of any kind a sin.

Didn't get what. You'll have to be more specific.

Why does this not apply but your example of slavery apparently does? And no, the discussion* is not "about the moderate consumption of alcohol," rather it is about whether or not it is OK from a religious point of view for Christians to drink alcohol. We are not discussing health benefits or lack thereof. (All diversions aside)

The advocates of temperance fail to do their whole duty unless they exert their influence by precept and example--by voice and pen and vote--in favor of prohibition and total abstinence.--RH, Nov. 8, 1881.

What can be done to press back the inflowing tide of evil? Let laws be enacted and rigidly enforced prohibiting the sale and the use of ardent spirits as a beverage. Let every effort be made to encourage the inebriate's return to temperance and virtue. But even more than this is needed to banish the curse of inebriety from our land. Let the appetite for intoxicating liquors be removed, and their use and sale is at an end. This work must to a great degree devolve upon parents. Let them, by observing strict temperance themselves, give the right stamp of character to their children, and then educate and train these children, in the fear of God, to habits of self-denial and self-control. Youth who have been thus trained will have moral stamina to resist temptation, and to control appetite and passion. They will stand unmoved by the folly and dissipation that are corrupting society. {GW 388.1}

Deut. 14:26 "And thou shalt bestow that money for whatsoever thy soul lusteth after, for oxen, or for sheep, or for wine, or for strong drink, or for whatsoever thy soul desireth: and thou shalt eat there before the LORD thy God, and thou shalt rejoice, thou, and thine household,"

Proverbs 31:6 "Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish, and wine unto those that be of heavy hearts. 7 Let him drink, and forget his poverty, and remember his misery no more."

1 Timothy 5:23 "Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities."

14:22 Thou shalt truly tithe all the increase of thy seed, that the field bringeth forth year by year.
14:23 And thou shalt eat before the LORD thy God, in the place which he shall choose to place his name there, the tithe of thy corn, of thy wine, and of thine oil, and the firstlings of thy herds and of thy flocks; that thou mayest learn to fear the LORD thy God always.
14:24 And if the way be too long for thee, so that thou art not able to carry it; [or] if the place be too far from thee, which the LORD thy God shall choose to set his name there, when the LORD thy God hath blessed thee:
14:25 Then shalt thou turn [it] into money, and bind up the money in thine hand, and shalt go unto the place which the LORD thy God shall choose:
14:26 And thou shalt bestow that money for whatsoever thy soul lusteth after, for oxen, or for sheep, or for wine, or for strong drink, or for whatsoever thy soul desireth: and thou shalt eat there before the LORD thy God, and thou shalt rejoice, thou, and thine household,
14:27 And the Levite that [is] within thy gates; thou shalt not forsake him; for he hath no part nor inheritance with thee.
14:28 At the end of three years thou shalt bring forth all the tithe of thine increase the same year, and shalt lay [it] up within thy gates:
14:29 And the Levite, (because he hath no part nor inheritance with thee,) and the stranger, and the fatherless, and the widow, which [are] within thy gates, shall come, and shall eat and be satisfied; that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all the work of thine hand which thou doest.

May 1, 1894 The Curse of the Liquor Traffic.
-
By Mrs. E. G. White.
-

"Woe unto him that buildeth his house by unrighteousness, and his chambers by wrong; that useth his neighbor's service without wages, and giveth him not for his work; that saith, I will build me a wide house and large chambers, and cutteth him out windows; and it is ceiled with cedar, and painted with vermilion. Shalt thou reign, because thou closest thyself in cedar? did not thy father eat and drink, and do judgment and justice, and then it was well with him? He judged the cause of the poor and needy; then it was well with him: was not this to know me? saith the Lord. But thine eyes and thine heart are not but for thy covetousness, and for to shed innocent blood, and for oppression, and for violence, to do it." {RH, May 1, 1894 par. 1}
In every phase of the liquor-selling business, there is dishonesty and violence. The houses of liquor dealers are built with the wages of unrighteousness, and upheld by violence and oppression. The effect of the liquor traffic is clearly delineated in the words of the prophets: "Woe to the crown of pride, to the drunkards of Ephraim, whose glorious beauty is a fading flower, which are on the head of the fat valleys of them that are overcome with wine! Behold, the Lord hath a mighty and strong one, which as a tempest of hail and a destroying storm, as a flood of mighty waters overflowing, shall cast down to the earth with the hand. The crown of pride, the drunkards of Ephraim, shall be trodden under feet: and the glorious beauty, which is on the head of the fat valley, shall be a fading flower, and as the hasty fruit before the summer; which when he that looketh upon it seeth, while it is yet in his hand he eateth it up. . . . But they also have erred through wine, and through strong drink are out of the way; the priest and prophet have erred through strong drink, they are swallowed up of wine, they are out of the way through strong drink; they err in vision, they stumble in judgment. For all tables are full of vomit and filthiness, so that there is no place clean." {RH, May 1, 1894 par. 2}
Through indulgence in sin, the world is becoming as corrupt as it was in the days of Sodom and Gomorrah, and as it was in the days that were before the flood. Jesus said that this condition of society would be a sign of his coming. He said: "As it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all. Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; but the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all. Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed." The very sins that brought upon Sodom the fire of destruction are practiced today, and are fast ripening the world for the day of final doom. Indulgence in intoxicating liquor and in licentious practices, is common in all our cities and villages, and the last great day is hastening upon the world. {RH, May 1, 1894 par. 3}
There are many solemn warnings in the Scriptures against the use of intoxicating liquors. Solomon says, "Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging; and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise." "Who hath woe? who hath sorrows? who hath contentions? who hath babbling? who hath wounds without cause? who hath redness of eyes? They that tarry long at the wine; they that go to seek mixed wine. Look not thou upon the wine when it is red, when it giveth his color in the cup, when it moveth itself aright. At the last it biteth like a serpent, and stingeth like an adder. Thine eyes shall behold strange women, and thine heart shall utter perverse things. Yea, thou shalt be as he that lieth down in the midst of the sea, or as he that lieth on the top of a mast. They have stricken me, thou shalt 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." {RH, May 1, 1894 par. 4}
Is not this description true to life? Does it not represent to us the experience of the poor, besotted drunkard, who is plunged in degradation and ruin because he has put the bottle to his lips, and who says, "I will seek it yet again"? The curse has come upon such a soul through indulgence in evil, and Satan has control of his being. "And it come to pass, when he heareth the words of this curse, that he bless himself in his heart, saying, I shall have peace, though I walk in the imagination of mine heart, to add drunkenness to thirst: the Lord will not spare him, but then the anger of the Lord and his jealousy shall smoke against that man, and all the curses that are written in this book shall lie upon him, and the Lord shall blot out his name from under heaven." {RH, May 1, 1894 par. 5}
With the awful results of indulgence in intoxicating drink before us, how is it that any man or woman who claims to believe in the word of God, can venture to touch, taste, or handle wine or strong drink? Such a practice is certainly out of harmony with their professed faith. "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter. Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight! Woe unto them that are mighty to drink wine, and men of strength to mingle strong drink: which justify the wicked for reward, and take away the righteousness of the righteous from him. Therefore as the fire devoureth the stubble, and the flame consumeth the chaff, so their root shall be as rottenness, and their blossom shall go up as dust: because they have cast away the law of the Lord of hosts, and despised the word of the Holy One of Israel." "Woe unto them that rise up early in the morning, that they may follow strong drink; that continue until night, till wine inflame them! And the harp and the viol, the tabret and pipe, and wine, are in their feasts: but they regard not the work of the Lord, neither consider the operation of his hands. Therefore my people are gone into captivity, because they have no knowledge: and their honorable men are famished, and their multitude dried up with thirst. Therefore hell hath enlarged herself, and opened her mouth without measure: and their glory, and their multitude, and their pomp, and he that rejoiceth, shall descend into it. And the mean man shall be brought down, and the mighty man shall be humbled, and the eyes of the lofty shall be humbled: but the Lord of hosts shall be exalted in judgment, and God that is holy shall be sanctified in righteousness." {RH, May 1, 1894 par. 6}
"Woe to them that are at ease in Zion. . . . Ye that put far away the evil day, and cause the seat of violence to come near; that lie on beds of ivory, and stretch themselves upon their couches, and eat the lambs out of the flock, and the calves out of the midst of the stall; that chant to the sound of the viol, and invent to themselves instruments of music, like David; that drink wine in bowls, and anoint themselves with the chief ointments: but they are not grieved for the affliction of Joseph. Therefore now shall they go captive with the first that go captive, and the banquet of them that stretched themselves shall be removed." {RH, May 1, 1894 par. 7}
"Woe to thee, O land, when thy king is a child, and thy princes eat in the morning! Blessed art thou, O land, when thy king is the son of nobles, and thy princes eat in due season, for strength, and not for drunkenness." "It is not for kings, O Lemuel, it is not for kings to drink wine; nor for princes strong drink: lest they drink, and forget the law, and pervert the judgment of any of the afflicted." These words of warning and command are pointed and decided, and let those in positions of public trust take heed, lest through wine and strong drink they forget the law and pervert judgment. Let rulers and judges be in a condition to fulfil the instruction of the Lord: "Ye shall not afflict any widow, or fatherless child. If thou afflict them in any wise, and they cry at all unto me, I will surely hear their cry; and my wrath shall wax hot, and I will kill you with the sword; and your wives shall be widows, and your children fatherless." {RH, May 1, 1894 par. 8}
The Lord God of heaven ruleth. He alone is above all authorities, over all kings and rulers. The Lord has given special directions in his word in reference to the use of wine and strong drink. He has forbidden their use, and enforced his prohibitions with strong warnings and threatenings. But his warning against the use of intoxicating beverages is not the result of the exercise of arbitrary authority. He has warned men, in order that they may escape from the evil that results from indulgence in wine and strong drink. Degradation, cruelty, wretchedness, and strife follow in the wake of drink. God has laid out the consequences of taking this course of evil, in order that there may not be a turning upside down of his instituted laws; that there may not be misery on all sides, through the increase of evil men who for the sake of gain shall selfishly heap to themselves riches, even through selling strong drink and putting the bottle to their neighbors' lips. The liquor traffic should not be legalized in any of our towns or cities. {RH, May 1, 1894 par. 9}
The Lord has given special directions in regard to what is to be done in the case of a vicious ox, which injures or causes the death of any person. He has said: "If an ox gore a man or a woman, that they die: then the ox shall be surely stoned, and his flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox shall be quit. But if the ox were wont to push with his horn in time past, and it hath been testified to his owner, and he hath not kept him in, but that he hath killed a man or a woman; the ox shall be stoned, and his owner also shall be put to death. If there be laid on him a sum of money, then he shall give for the ransom of his life whatsoever is laid upon him. Whether he have gored a son, or have gored a daughter, according to this judgment shall it be done unto him. If the ox shall push a man-servant or a maid-servant; he shall give unto their master thirty shekels of silver, and the ox shall be stoned." {RH, May 1, 1894 par. 10}
Remember this instruction in regard to the vicious ox, and apply the principle involved to the man who deals out poisonous alcoholic drinks to his neighbors. Not every man who engages in the liquor business is ignorant of the numberless ways in which it results in degradation, misery, poverty, cruelty, and death. The liquor traffic is a terrible scourge to our land, and is sustained and legalized by those who profess to be Christians. In thus doing, the churches make themselves responsible for all the results of this death-dealing traffic. The liquor traffic has its root in hell itself, and it leads to perdition. These are solemn considerations. {RH, May 1, 1894 par. 11}
The man who has formed the habit of drinking intoxicating liquor, is in a desperate situation. He cannot be reasoned with, or persuaded to deny himself the indulgence. His stomach and brain are diseased, his will power is weakened, and his appetite uncontrollable. The prince of the powers of darkness holds him in bondage that he has no power to break. For the aid of such victims the liquor traffic should be stopped. Do not the rulers of this land see that awful results are the fruit of this traffic? Daily the papers are filled with accounts that would move a heart of stone; and if the senses of our rulers were not perverted, they would see the necessity of doing away with this death-dealing traffic. May the Lord move upon the hearts of those in authority, until they shall take measures that will prohibit the drink traffic.

-
{RH, May 1, 1894 par. 12}

May 8, 1894 The Liquor Traffic Working Counter
to Christ.
-
By Mrs. E. G. White.
-

Jesus came to our world to dispute the authority of Satan, who claimed supremacy over the earth. He came to restore in man the defaced image of God, to impart to the repentant soul divine power by which he might be raised from corruption and degradation, and be elevated and ennobled and made fit for companionship with the angels of heaven, to take the position in the courts of God which Satan and his angels lost through their rebellion. But men have failed to co-operate with Jesus in his divine mission, and have placed themselves under the black banner of the prince of darkness, giving themselves up to be the agents through whom the powers of darkness work for the destruction of humanity. It is Satan's purpose to counteract the work of Christ, and in his counsels he lays plans by which to convert every soul into a channel of darkness. The earth is the field of battle in which the powers of light and darkness are in controversy over the human souls for whom Christ died. {RH, May 8, 1894 par. 1}
When Jesus was upon earth, he announced his mission and the character of his work. He said: "The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me; because the Lord hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the broken-hearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound; to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn; to appoint unto them that mourn in Zion, to give unto them beauty for ashes, the oil of joy for mourning, the garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness; that they might be called Trees of righteousness, The planting of the Lord, that he might be glorified." {RH, May 8, 1894 par. 2}
Thus are pictured the mission and work of Christ and his co-laborers; but how different is the work of the prince of darkness and the work of those who labor on his side of the controversy. Those who are united with the prince of darkness in degrading the souls of their fellow-men, many times cloak their iniquity under the garb of religion; but of them the Lord says: "When ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you; yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear: your hands are full of blood." There are many who spread forth their hands in Pharisaical self-righteousness and self-importance, who yet deny the principles of the law of God in their daily actions. Let not those whose hands are full of blood think to find acceptance with God because of their forms of worship. Those who sell intoxicating liquor to their fellow-men come under this reproof. They receive the earnings of the drunkard, and give him no equivalent for his money. Instead of this, they give him that which maddens him, which makes him act the fool, and turns him into a demon of evil and cruelty. He exchanges his reason at the bar of the liquor-dealer for a glass of rum or brandy; and under its influence he may cruelly beat his wife and children, and may even kill them outright, or do so by piece-meal, through neglect, through failure to supply them with the necessities of life. Because of a lack of proper food, of sufficient clothing, because of discouragements and degradation, sickness and death come upon his family, and at last their misery is over. But angels of God have witnessed every step in the downward path, and have traced every consequence that resulted from a man's placing the bottle to his neighbor's lips. The liquor-dealer is written in the records among those whose hands are full of blood. He is condemned for keeping on hand the poisonous draught by which his neighbor is tempted to ruin, and by which homes are filled with wretchedness and degradation. The Lord holds the liquor-dealer responsible for every penny that comes to his till out of the earnings of the poor drunkard, who has lost all moral power, who has sunk his manhood in drink. {RH, May 8, 1894 par. 3}
Christ came to our world and suffered reproach, mockery, and insult. He was maligned and maltreated, and at last put to the shameful death of the cross. He suffered all this that he might rescue man from moral degradation, and restore to the soul the lost image of God. But the liquor-dealer, under the prince of the power of darkness, is working in exactly opposite lines, counter to the work of Christ, and is obliterating every trace of the image which Christ would restore. Look at the drunkard. See what liquor has done for him. His eyes are bleared and bloodshot. His countenance is bloated and besotted. His gait is staggering. The sign of Satan's working is written all over him. Nature herself protests that she knows him not; for he has perverted his God-given powers, and prostituted his manhood by indulgence in drink. {RH, May 8, 1894 par. 4}
If a man has a vicious beast, and he allows it freedom, knowing that it will work injury to men, women, and children, he is brought before the law to answer for his carelessness or malignity. But how much better it would be to let such a beast loose than to license men to deal out poisonous drinks, to rob men of reason and manhood. What common sense in there in licensing men to sell that which destroys men, body and soul, claiming that this infamous business brings into the treasury a revenue by which the orphan children of the drunkard can be cared for? The world knows that intoxicating liquors rob men of the brain nerve-power, and send them into society bereft of reason. The world knows that most horrible crimes have been committed under its influence, and that drunken men have been led by Satan to do as he dictated, and stain their hands in the blood of their neighbors. The law authorizes the sale of liquor, and then has to build prisons for its victims; for nine tenths of those who are taken to prison are those who have learned to drink. They are those who have spent their earnings in the saloon. What revenue from this traffic can pay for the loss of human reason, for the loss of the image of God in men, for families reduced to suffering and degradation, for children made paupers, who grow up in ignorance and vice, to perpetuate in their posterity the inherited evil tendencies of their drunken fathers? Such is the outworking of this dreadful liquor traffic, and thus it perpetuates misery and crime, until the sum cannot be told by human voice or portrayed by human pen. {RH, May 8, 1894 par. 5}
The hands of both liquor-dealers and liquor-drinkers are full of blood; yet the word of God comes to them, "Wash ye, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes; cease to do evil; learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow;" and he adds this gracious invitation, "Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool. If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land: but if ye refuse and rebel, ye shall be devoured with the sword: for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it." "How is the faithful city become a harlot! it was full of judgment; righteousness lodged in it; but now murderers. Thy silver is become dross, thy wine mixed with water [and poison]: thy princes are rebellious, and companions of thieves: every one loveth gifts, and followeth after rewards: they judge not the fatherless, neither doth the cause of the widow come unto them." Rulers and law-makers are not ignorant of the misery and degradation, the horrible and unceasing crime that pollutes the world through the influence of the liquor-traffic. But though they are not ignorant, they do not take measures to stop the terrible traffic; but will they escape judgment? Hear what the Lord says: "The destruction of the transgressors, and of the sinners shall be together." Those who legalize sin, and those who are dealers in whisky, and those who are defiled by it, will be destroyed together. Let not the man who indulges in drink think that he will be able to cover his defilement by casting the blame upon the liquor-dealer; for he will have to answer for his sin and for the degradation of his wife and children. "They that forsake the Lord shall be consumed." {RH, May 8, 1894 par. 6}
In Europe and America drinking-gardens are made most attractive, and musicians are hired to play on instruments, to lure in the young and the old; and all classes patronize these resorts where all kinds of intoxicating liquors are prepared to tempt the depraved appetite. But the time will certainly come when the prophecy will be fulfilled: "For they shall be ashamed of the oaks which ye have desired, and ye shall be confounded for the gardens that ye have chosen. For ye shall be as an oak whose leaf fadeth, and as a garden that hath no water. And the strong shall be as tow, and the maker of it as a spark, and they shall both burn together, and none shall quench them." {RH, May 8, 1894 par. 7}
The evil consequent upon the indulgence of depraved appetite is widespread, and the earth is corrupted under the inhabitants thereof. The earth withereth under the curse of its sin, and the very cattle are diseased. What is the trouble? Why is this? It is because the people have forsaken the law of God, and the earth is cursed under its transgression. Notwithstanding the warnings of God's word, transgression has increased since the days of Adam, and more and more heavily has the curse pressed upon the human family, on the beasts of the earth, and on the earth itself. Continual transgression of the law of God has brought its sure results. With all his hellish arts, Satan has sought to lead men into practices that would destroy and debase, and destruction is sure to him who does not repent and turn to God for his healing grace. The soul that has not the grace of God can make no efforts to resist Satan, but will co-operate naturally with the Satanic agencies, and disregard and oppose the law of God; and the sure result of such a course is that men become the willing slaves of Satan, and work with him in influencing others in the way of disobedience. {RH, May 8, 1894 par. 8}
The character of true obedience to God is brought out in the instruction of the Lord to his people. He says (Isaiah 58:6-10): "Is not this the fast that I have chosen? to loose the bands of wickedness, to undo the heavy burdens, and to let the oppressed go free, and that ye break every yoke? Is it not to deal thy bread to the hungry, and that thou bring the poor that are cast out to thy house? when thou seest the naked, that thou cover him; and that thou hide not thyself from thine own flesh? Then shall thy light break forth as the morning, and thine health shall spring forth speedily: and thy righteousness shall go before thee; the glory of the Lord shall be thy rearward. Then shalt thou call, and the Lord shall answer; thou shalt cry, and he shall say, Here I am. If thou take away from the midst of thee the yoke, the putting forth of the finger, and speaking vanity; and if thou draw out thy soul to the hungry, and satisfy the afflicted soul; then shall thy light rise in obscurity, and thy darkness be as the noonday: and the Lord shall guide thee continually, and satisfy thy soul in drouth, and make fat thy bones: and thou shalt be as a watered garden, and like a spring of water, whose waters fail not."

-
{RH, May 8, 1894 par. 9}

Also, please consider the following arguments against the view you hold:

14:26 And thou shalt bestow that money for whatsoever thy soul lusteth after, for oxen, or for sheep, or for wine, or for strong drink, or for whatsoever thy soul desireth: and thou shalt eat there before the LORD thy God, and thou shalt rejoice, thou, and thine household,

I posted three texts that clearly say it's okay. Would you like to comment on the other two?

J: Yes, the context is in regard to tithe, however it is clearly stated that the Israelite should "eat there before the LORD thy God, and thou shalt rejoice, thou, and thine household," So, tithe or no tithe, it is stated that our man drinks the "strong drink." And not just drink, but "rejoice."

M: Also, please consider the following arguments against the view you hold:

J: First, it is the argument I am making, not the view I hold. Second, I argue from Scripture, not Elllen White.

The Lord said of Noah and his family who were saved in the ark, "For thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation." Noah had but one wife; and their united family discipline was blessed of God. Because Noah's sons were righteous, they were preserved in the ark with their righteous father. God has not sanctioned polygamy in a single instance. It was contrary to his will. He knew that the happiness of man would be destroyed by it. Abraham's peace was greatly marred by his unhappy marriage with Hagar. {1SP 94.1}

If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband's brother unto her. (Deuteronomy 25:5)

If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish. (Exodus 21:10)

And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul; And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things. (2 Samuel 12:7-8)

David afterward married Abigail. This was not according to the original plan of God; it was in direct opposition to his design, that a man should have more than one wife. David was already the husband of Ahinoam. The gospel condemns the practice of polygamy. The custom of the nations of David’s time had perverted his judgment and influenced his actions. Great men have erred greatly in following the practices of the world. The study of everyone should be to know what is the will of God and what saith the word of the Lord. The bitter result of this practice of marrying many wives was permitted to be sorely felt throughout all the life of David. {ST October 26, 1888, par. 15}

And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul; And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things. (2 Samuel 12:7-8)

Find me an answer which fits the written Word, rather than one which merely fits a conservative opinion.

10:1 And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took either of them his censer, and put fire therein, and put incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the LORD, which he commanded them not.
10:2 And there went out fire from the LORD, and devoured them, and they died before the LORD.
10:3 Then Moses said unto Aaron, This [is it] that the LORD spake, saying, I will be sanctified in them that come nigh me, and before all the people I will be glorified. And Aaron held his peace.
10:4 And Moses called Mishael and Elzaphan, the sons of Uzziel the uncle of Aaron, and said unto them, Come near, carry your brethren from before the sanctuary out of the camp.
10:5 So they went near, and carried them in their coats out of the camp; as Moses had said.
10:6 And Moses said unto Aaron, and unto Eleazar and unto Ithamar, his sons, Uncover not your heads, neither rend your clothes; lest ye die, and lest wrath come upon all the people: but let your brethren, the whole house of Israel, bewail the burning which the LORD hath kindled.
10:7 And ye shall not go out from the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, lest ye die: for the anointing oil of the LORD [is] upon you. And they did according to the word of Moses.
10:8 And the LORD spake unto Aaron, saying,
10:9 Do not drink wine nor strong drink, thou, nor thy sons with thee, when ye go into the tabernacle of the congregation, lest ye die: [it shall be] a statute for ever throughout your generations:
10:10 And that ye may put difference between holy and unholy, and between unclean and clean;
10:11 And that ye may teach the children of Israel all the statutes which the LORD hath spoken unto them by the hand of Moses.

For the record, I believe some things which were permitted in the past are no longer permitted. To say that they never were permissible, however, is simply not faithful to the original text.

I agree. However, we both agree "drunkenness" was never permitted.

Jesus refused even a sip of alcohol.

Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish, and wine unto those that be of heavy hearts. Let him drink, and forget his poverty, and remember his misery no more. (Proverbs 31:6-7)

Can we reconcile the two always?

If we can't, then they don't come from the same source.

The Bible clearly permitted, even commanded in certain cases, polygamy.

Then please, tell us how it's done!

God commands, just after the Ten Commandments are given, in fact, that if a man marries a second wife, he must not diminish his care of nor "duty of marriage" with the first one.

Furthermore, God commands that widows should not leave the family to marry outside of it, but must marry a brother of the deceased husband.

God goes on record, speaking through the prophet Nathan, that He gave David his wives (plural). How can this not be "sanctioning?"

To promote the assembling of the people for religious service, as well as to provide for the poor, a second tithe of all the increase was required. Concerning the first tithe, the Lord had declared, "I have given the children of Levi all the tenth in Israel." Numbers 18:21. But in regard to the second He commanded, "Thou shalt eat before the Lord thy God, in the place which He shall choose to place His name there, the tithe of thy corn, of thy wine, and of thine oil, and the firstlings of thy herds and of thy flocks; that thou mayest learn to fear the Lord thy God always." Deuteronomy 14:23, 29; 16:11-14. This tithe, or its equivalent in money, they were for two years to bring to the place where the sanctuary was established. After presenting a thank offering to God, and a specified portion to the priest, the offerers were to use the remainder for a religious feast, in which the Levite, the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow should participate. Thus provision was made for the thank offerings and feasts at the yearly festivals, and the people were drawn to the society of the priests and Levites, that they might receive instruction and encouragement in the service of God. {PP 530.1}
Every third year, however, this second tithe was to be used at home, in entertaining the Levite and the poor, as Moses said, "That they may eat within thy gates, and be filled." Deuteronomy 26:12. This tithe would provide a fund for the uses of charity and hospitality. {PP 530.2}

You have perhaps seen a picture of the stomach of one who is addicted to strong drink. A similar condition is produced under the irritating influence of fiery spices. With the stomach in such a state, there is a craving for something more to meet the demands of the appetite, something stronger, and still stronger. Next you find your sons out on the street learning to smoke. It is a grievous lesson; it makes them deathly sick. Yet they press the matter through with a perseverance that would be praiseworthy in a better cause. Tobacco weakens the brain, and paralyzes its fine sensibilities. Its use excites a thirst for strong drink, and in very many cases lays the foundation for the liquor habit. {CTBH 17.3}

If it were a sin to take a second wife, why would God say "if he take him another wife...?" If it were a sin, God should have said instead, "he must not take another wife within her lifetime..." or something to that effect. God would never have been "permissive" of sin, to give a law like that allowing sin.

This, in itself, proves that polygamy was not so heinous as some might see it.

GC, do you agree with JAK that God permitted "drunkenness" on special occasions?

And, do you agree with him that Jesus occasionally experienced "drunkenness"?

Also, concerning the two texts which appear to recommend "wine" and "strong drink" in specific instances, do you think God is recommending "drunkenness"?

Finally, what do you make of all passages in the Bible and the SOP which explicitly prohibit "wine" and "strong drink" and "drunkenness"? Do they contradict the other two passages you posted?

Let me rewrite what you said:
If it were a sin to divorce, why would God say, "When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some uncleanness in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce..." (Dt 24:1)? If it were a sin, God should have said instead, "he must not divorce his wife..." or something to that effect. God would never have been "permissive" of sin, to give a law like that allowing sin.
This, in itself, proves that divorce was not so heinous as some might see it.

Is that your logic? But if divorce is not heinous, adultery is not heinous.
"But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery."

The same is true about slavery. But I won't rewrite it again. I think you understood my point.

GC, do you agree with JAK that God permitted "drunkenness" on special occasions?

And, do you agree with him that Jesus occasionally experienced "drunkenness"?

Also, concerning the two texts which appear to recommend "wine" and "strong drink" in specific instances, do you think God is recommending "drunkenness"?

Finally, what do you make of all passages in the Bible and the SOP which explicitly prohibit "wine" and "strong drink" and "drunkenness"? Do they contradict the other two passages you posted?

Ye shall not eat of any thing that dieth of itself: thou shalt give it unto the stranger that is in thy gates, that he may eat it; or thou mayest sell it unto an alien: for thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God. (Deuteronomy 14:21)

They soon forgat his works; they waited not for his counsel: But lusted exceedingly in the wilderness, and tempted God in the desert. And he gave them their request; but sent leanness into their soul. (Psalm 106:13-15)

GC, again, as always, thank you for sharing. As you know, I value your thoughts. In cases of so-called "grey areas" I think we have an advantage in the Spirit of Prophecy. God has not left us in darkness to wonder what He meant by what He said in the Bible about alcohol and drunkenness. We can ignore or dismiss what He plainly told us about it through the SOP and continue to treat it as a "grey area" or we can accept what He said about it through the SOP and rejoice in the truth. Please don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying this as a personal rebuke against you. But God really did settle the question about alcohol and drunkenness many years ago through the SOP. I'm surprised people are still unclear about it. God could not have stated the matter more clearly than He did through the SOP.

And, do you agree with him that Jesus occasionally experienced "drunkenness"?

Also, concerning the two texts which appear to recommend "wine" and "strong drink" in specific instances, do you think God is recommending "drunkenness"?

Finally, what do you make of all passages in the Bible and the SOP which explicitly prohibit "wine" and "strong drink" and "drunkenness"? Do they contradict the other two passages you posted?

Mike, The Bible IS the Spirit of Prophecy. Light grows. The inspired words we have today cover more ground and give more clarity to what was ever given in the past. Thus, our accountability for the light we have been given is also increased. We are held to a higher standard. The new messages do not change the old ones, however. They may clarify them in some cases, but just as often they raise the standard from what has been given prior. Such is the case, as I see it, with alcohol.

M: And, do you agree with him that Jesus occasionally experienced "drunkenness"?

J: Once again you twist your opponents words. I did not say Jesus experienced drunkenness, only that he (possibly, when compared with J the B) drank.

M: Also, concerning the two texts which appear to recommend "wine" and "strong drink" in specific instances, do you think God is recommending "drunkenness"?

J: Nor have I ever said that God recommends drunkenness. To allow or permit is not the same as recommending.

M: Finally, what do you make of all passages in the Bible and the SOP which explicitly prohibit "wine" and "strong drink" and "drunkenness"? Do they contradict the other two passages you posted?

J: Sorry to keep bringing this up, but there are no passages in the Bible which "explicitly prohibit" alcohol.

Lev
10:9 Do not drink wine nor strong drink, thou, nor thy sons with thee, when ye go into the tabernacle of the congregation, lest ye die: [it shall be] a statute for ever throughout your generations:

Num
6:3 He shall separate [himself] from wine and strong drink, and shall drink no vinegar of wine, or vinegar of strong drink, neither shall he drink any liquor of grapes, nor eat moist grapes, or dried.

Deut
29:6 Ye have not eaten bread, neither have ye drunk wine or strong drink: that ye might know that I [am] the LORD your God.

Judges
13:13 And the angel of the LORD said unto Manoah, Of all that I said unto the woman let her beware.
13:14 She may not eat of any [thing] that cometh of the vine, neither let her drink wine or strong drink, nor eat any unclean [thing]: all that I commanded her let her observe.

Prov
20:1 Wine [is] a mocker, strong drink [is] raging: and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise.
31:4 [It is] not for kings, O Lemuel, [it is] not for kings to drink wine; nor for princes strong drink:
31:5 Lest they drink, and forget the law, and pervert the judgment of any of the afflicted.

Isa
5:22 Woe unto [them that are] mighty to drink wine, and men of strength to mingle strong drink:

Luke
1:15 For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb.

Mike,

As I have noticed in other studies involving Mrs. White's writings, she had a tendency to write in absolute terms, a bit like many people do today who are not meticulous wordsmiths, and who speak with some feeling. Statements like "You never take out the garbage!" (When in actual fact, perhaps the person does take out the garbage, just not very often.)

I guess, I would have to ask you straightforwardly, have you ever followed the counsel of Prov. 31:6-7? If not, why not? And more to the point, do you believe those words were inspired and should be part of the Bible? Do you have, instead, some other way of interpreting them that would reverse what appears to be their clear intent in such a way as to make those words agree with what Mrs. White says?

Please share.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

What about the ones that do? For example:Lev
10:9 Do not drink wine nor strong drink, thou, nor thy sons with thee, when ye go into the tabernacle of the congregation, lest ye die: [it shall be] a statute for ever throughout your generations:

Num
6:3 He shall separate [himself] from wine and strong drink, and shall drink no vinegar of wine, or vinegar of strong drink, neither shall he drink any liquor of grapes, nor eat moist grapes, or dried.

Deut
29:6 Ye have not eaten bread, neither have ye drunk wine or strong drink: that ye might know that I [am] the LORD your God.

Judges
13:13 And the angel of the LORD said unto Manoah, Of all that I said unto the woman let her beware.
13:14 She may not eat of any [thing] that cometh of the vine, neither let her drink wine or strong drink, nor eat any unclean [thing]: all that I commanded her let her observe.

Prov
20:1 Wine [is] a mocker, strong drink [is] raging: and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise.
31:4 [It is] not for kings, O Lemuel, [it is] not for kings to drink wine; nor for princes strong drink:
31:5 Lest they drink, and forget the law, and pervert the judgment of any of the afflicted.

Isa
5:22 Woe unto [them that are] mighty to drink wine, and men of strength to mingle strong drink:

Luke
1:15 For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb.

J: There are no passages in the Bible which "explicitly prohibit" alcohol.

M: What about the ones that do? [texts posted]

J: These texts prohibit alcohol consumption for specific people (Levites) or at specific times (going into the temple, Nazarite vows.) It is not a general prohibition on alcohol consumption. The clear implication is that alcohol was consumed generally by the Hebrews and was not considered a sin.

GC, go with "metaphorical" instead. Nothing Ellen wrote about it was metaphorical. Proverbs, on the other hand, is chock full of symbols and metaphors. Do you really believe Jesus would advice a guy down on his luck to - Get drunk and forget about it!

MM: I agree. However, we both agree "drunkenness" was never permitted.

JAK: I disagree. Excessive, chronic, drunkenness was never permitted. Occasional innebriation as a result of a celebration of some sort such as a wedding or a victory was acceptable.

By the way, the statement, Mike, that you made earlier about the wine recommended to Timothy for his stomach's sake being pure grape juice--that cannot be proven. The Greek word "wine" encompasses both grape juice and strong drink. Any time the word is used, it could be one or the other, or even both. There is simply no possibility of proving that the wine recommended to Timothy would have been understood by Timothy himself to mean only grape juice, and nothing more.

The "uncleanness" which the new groom might find in his bride that would cause him to put her away, just as in the case of Joseph in the New Testament who was minded to do this for Mary when she had become pregnant out of wedlock, very probably refers to adultery. In such cases, divorce was allowed "because of the hardness of your hearts."

Divorce may be another of those "gray areas" in the Bible. It was allowed under some circumstances, chiefly in cases of adultery.

Now, since you haven't proven that divorce, under the law, was a sin, I think you cannot use it to show that polygamy would be a sin under the law.

However, divorce has always been allowed in cases of infidelity, OT...

Secondly, it is harder to find texts that condemn multiple marriages than it is to find ones that condemn drinking.

God's instructions in the case of adultery were stoning, not divorce.

Jesus gave permission for divorce in such cases in the NT, not in the OT.

Divorce is a sin because it leads to remarrying, which is adultery (except in the case of marital infidelity). And polygamy is a sin because it is adultery. If you are already married, having sexual relations with someone else is adultery.

God's instructions in the case of adultery were stoning, not divorce.


Jesus gave permission for divorce in such cases in the NT, not in the OT.


Divorce is a sin because it leads to remarrying, which is adultery (except in the case of marital infidelity). And polygamy is a sin because it is adultery. If you are already married, having sexual relations with someone else is adultery.

If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days. (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)

GC do you really believe Jesus would advice a guy down on his luck to - Get drunk and forget about it!

GC: By the way, the statement, Mike, that you made earlier about the wine recommended to Timothy for his stomach's sake being pure grape juice--that cannot be proven. The Greek word "wine" encompasses both grape juice and strong drink. Any time the word is used, it could be one or the other, or even both. There is simply no possibility of proving that the wine recommended to Timothy would have been understood by Timothy himself to mean only grape juice, and nothing more.

K: Was all that was recommended to Timothy, should that be recommended to us?

M: And, how much wine was dosed to treat stomach disorders? Did it cause drunkenness?

JAK, I don't consider this is off-topic. It's part of the argumentation. If drinking alcohol is OK because the Bible doesn't explicitly prohibit it, the same is true about polygamy and slavery.

Again, where is your scripture? Prove it!

If God gave instructions always for stoning, what about the "bitter water" that was given in cases of "jealousy?"

And what about the cases for where a man would force a virgin?

I suppose, Rosangela, you would have defined that as adultery. But the Bible doesn't.

Now, how would these rules apply to wine? Are there similar legalizations for the use of wine, e.g. not being a priest, deacon, or king? If you were not "married" to spiritual leadership, and were not "betrothed" to leadership (e.g. a prince), was wine consumption then acceptable?

I'm sorry, I completely reject this line of reasoning. Polygamy is completely different from slavery which is different from alcohol. Justifying one does not justify the other. Those are separate arguments of their own. If you are trying to convince me that drinking is a sin, this argument won't do it.

I oppose both smoking and drinking not just for health reasons, but also because they are sins. Everything that is harmful to your health is a transgression of the 5th commandment (causing injury to your own body is a form of self-killing) and of the 6th (you are robbing yourself of health, and robbing God and your neighbor of the service you could render to them if you lived longer). This applies to both alcohol and smoking. In the same way, slavery is a sin (although not specifically condemned in the Bible) because it's a transgression of the 6th commandment (you are stealing someone's liberty).

Bump for GC:

Bump for GC:

Prove what? That polygamy is adultery? Please define adultery. This is how I define it, in its obvious definition: to have sexual relations with someone if you are already married, or if the person is already married.


This is when the husband wasn't sure about whether adultery had occurred or not. How could someone who hadn't been proven guilty be stoned?


This involves single persons, so technically it's not adultery. The penalty was marrying.


The fact that technically it isn't an adultery doesn't mean that it isn't a transgression of the seventh commandment. Any sexual immorality is a transgression of the seventh commandment and is a sin, in the same way that anger is a transgression of the fifth commandment and is a sin.

"Or do you not know that he who is joined to a harlot is one body with her? For 'the two,' He says, 'shall become one flesh.' ... Flee sexual immorality. Every sin that a man does is outside the body, but he who commits sexual immorality sins against his own body" (1 Cor. 6:16-18).


No, in view of what I said above.

Bible Dictionary

Adultery definition


conjugal infidelity. An adulterer was a man who had illicit intercourse with a married or a betrothed woman, and such a woman was an adulteress. Intercourse between a married man and an unmarried woman was fornication. Adultery was regarded as a great social wrong, as well as a great sin. The Mosaic law (Num. 5:11-31) prescribed that the suspected wife should be tried by the ordeal of the "water of jealousy." There is, however, no recorded instance of the application of this law. In subsequent times the Rabbis made various regulations with the view of discovering the guilty party, and of bringing about a divorce. It has been inferred from John 8:1-11 that this sin became very common during the age preceding the destruction of Jerusalem. Idolatry, covetousness, and apostasy are spoken of as adultery spiritually (Jer. 3:6, 8, 9; Ezek. 16:32; Hos. 1:2:3; Rev. 2:22). An apostate church is an adulteress (Isa. 1:21; Ezek. 23:4, 7, 37), and the Jews are styled "an adulterous generation" (Matt. 12:39). (Comp. Rev. 12.)


Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary

Adultery (also called philandery) is a form of extramarital sex. It is sexual infidelity to one's spouse. It originally referred only to sex between a woman who was married and a person other than her spouse.[1]

The argument from silence is not the basis for the assertion that alcohol consumption is not a sin. Rather, it is a response to MM's (and possibly your) assertion that Scripture specifically condemns drinking. I find NO texts which do this and, evidently, neither does anyone else.

I maintain that the use of alcohol was an accepted aspect of Jewish life, and was not viewed as sinfull. Chronic, habitual drunkeness, however, WAS condemned as sinfull.

Many arguments can be made against the use of alcohol on the basis of health (studies about middle-aged men not withstanding), social stability and responsibility, family peace and security, etc., all of which I agree with. But it is not a sin, according to Scripture.

MM: I agree. However, we both agree "drunkenness" was never permitted.

JAK: I disagree. Excessive, chronic, drunkenness was never permitted. Occasional innebriation as a result of a celebration of some sort such as a wedding or a victory was acceptable.

With that interpretation of the 5th commandment being over weight is a sin, being underweight is a sin, buying a new car is a sin (the "new car smell" causes cancer) owning a car is a sin, (exhaust will kill you), not getting sufficient exercise is a sin, too much exercise is a sin, too much sitting is a sin, too much looking at a computer screen is a sin, not arguing with your spouse is a sin (pent-up stress kills), working in an office building is a sin (sick-building syndrome), drinking from a Lexan water bottle is a sin (BPA), using aluminum pots is a sin (aluminum)... Need I go on?

GC and JAK, what is "drunk"? Is it only with a blood alcohol content of .08 or greater?

Adultery can only be relations which are "illicit." Marriage, however, makes them "licit."

But it is clearly one of the gray areas in the Bible, and people tend to either recognize that such areas of gray exist, or they deny them. You, Rosangela, seem to prefer not to recognize them. In this case, it is easy for me to understand why you would be unable to accept the reality of the Bible's gray area with respect to wine.

I don't think Paul would agree with that.
"So then if, while her husband lives, she marries another man, she will be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from that law, so that she is no adulteress, though she has married another man" (Rom. 7:3).

I do not think I am willing to try to guess at what is "drunk." Proverbs allows for drinking to the point of "forgetting." Whatever level that is. Certainly, they did not have blood alcohol tests.

The Bible defines sin as the transgression of the law. You said chronic, habitual drunkenness is sin. Which commandment does it violate?

Anyhow, according to the Biblical culture/law, a woman was the possession of a man.

God made Eve FOR Adam. Paul brings this up in his writings. They were equals, yet different.

Conversely, a man could have more than one woman belonging to him. Obviously, he could have both a wife and a daughter, or a number of daughters. But he was also permitted to have more than one wife.

Honestly, I don't think the Bible advocates drunkenness. It merely allows it for some people.

This is very close to my point. I do not hold drinking to be a sin, but I do think a "drunken lifestyle" is.

Um...good point. I guess "chronic, habitual drunkeness" is NOT a sin. Thanks for pointing that out. (tongue-in-cheek)

This is very close to my point. I do not hold drinking to be a sin, but I do think a "drunken lifestyle" is. I'm also a bit confused by your question. What point are you arguing? You seem to have gone from "all alcohol is sinful" to "drunkeness is not a sin."

Okay.
So, do we now have that you think the Bible says it's ok to drink but not be drunk, but it's up to each individual to think what drunk is?

?
What is the difference between "chronic, habitual drunkenness" and a "drunken lifestyle"? Why is the latter a sin but the former isn't? To me, they are the same thing.

Paul says clearly that no drunkard will inherit the kingdom of God:

"Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God" (Gal. 5:19-21).

"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Cor. 6:9, 10).

I don't know how something can prevent someone from going to heaven and yet not be a sin.

My point is that drunkenness is a sin, a violation of one of the commandments of the law of God. But notice that no commandment mentions drunkenness specifically.

M: Do you really believe Jesus would advice a guy down on his luck to - Get drunk and forget about it!

GC: No, I do not see Jesus saying this. However, there are others who did indeed seem to say it, would you not agree? Jesus did not command the adultress to be stoned. Yet Moses commanded the Levites to kill "every man his neighbor" etc. following the worship of the Golden Calf. The difference? Time, place and circumstance. Perhaps with wine it is the same difference.

GC: By the way, the statement, Mike, that you made earlier about the wine recommended to Timothy for his stomach's sake being pure grape juice--that cannot be proven. The Greek word "wine" encompasses both grape juice and strong drink. Any time the word is used, it could be one or the other, or even both. There is simply no possibility of proving that the wine recommended to Timothy would have been understood by Timothy himself to mean only grape juice, and nothing more.

K: Was all that was recommended to Timothy, should that be recommended to us?

M: And, how much wine was dosed to treat stomach disorders? Did it cause drunkenness?

GC: If you have found a scripture to answer that question of the dosage, I have not. What I have seen is relatively lacking in terms of quantification. But it says "a little wine." That is not the same as "a lot," but it does not tell us whether this would be a thimble full (like is in many cough syrups and elixirs today), or if it were a full glass. It probably does not mean a full pitcher, in any case, and therefore would be unlikely to have caused drunkenness. For some reason, the communion wine which we partake of is given as but a thimble full. Is this to keep us from potential drunkenness? I hesitate to suggest such a sacrilegious thought. But I have often wondered why the communion ceremony boasts such small portions. I am certain the disciples with Jesus had larger ones. It was their supper.

GC: I do not think I am willing to try to guess at what is "drunk." Proverbs allows for drinking to the point of "forgetting." Whatever level that is. Certainly, they did not have blood alcohol tests.

If not Jesus, who, then, in Prov 31 counseled people down on their luck to - Get drunk and forget about it?

There is no contradiction or evolution between Jesus in the NT and Jesus in the OT. It was Jesus who commanded Moses to kill ungodly people. We cannot assume, based on the mistaken notion there is a contradiction or evolution between Jesus in the OT and Jesus in the NT, that wine and strong drink and drunkenness, therefore, was advised in the OT and forbidden in the NT.

The facts are, things can and do change at times with respect to the circumstances and times.

M: Do you really believe Jesus would advice a guy down on his luck to - Get drunk and forget about it!

GC: No, I do not see Jesus saying this. However, there are others who did indeed seem to say it, would you not agree? Jesus did not command the adultress to be stoned. Yet Moses commanded the Levites to kill "every man his neighbor" etc. following the worship of the Golden Calf. The difference? Time, place and circumstance. Perhaps with wine it is the same difference.

M: If not Jesus, who, then, in Prov 31 counseled people down on their luck to - Get drunk and forget about it? There is no contradiction or evolution between Jesus in the NT and Jesus in the OT. It was Jesus who commanded Moses to kill ungodly people. We cannot assume, based on the mistaken notion there is a contradiction or evolution between Jesus in the OT and Jesus in the NT, that wine and strong drink and drunkenness, therefore, was advised in the OT and forbidden in the NT.

GC: I agree, Mike, that God has not changed. I will disagree, however, that the rules have never changed. There are many evidences of things which have changed. The facts are, things can and do change at times with respect to the circumstances and times. God is not vague in His expectations, but those expectations are not always the same. Here are a few examples so that you see where I'm coming from:

Sacrificial system
Meat eating
Aaronites vs Levites as priests
Theocracy / Monarchy / Foreign government
Stoning / Mercy?

GC: By the way, the statement, Mike, that you made earlier about the wine recommended to Timothy for his stomach's sake being pure grape juice--that cannot be proven. The Greek word "wine" encompasses both grape juice and strong drink. Any time the word is used, it could be one or the other, or even both. There is simply no possibility of proving that the wine recommended to Timothy would have been understood by Timothy himself to mean only grape juice, and nothing more.

K: Was all that was recommended to Timothy, should that be recommended to us?

M: And, how much wine was dosed to treat stomach disorders? Did it cause drunkenness?

GC: If you have found a scripture to answer that question of the dosage, I have not. What I have seen is relatively lacking in terms of quantification. But it says "a little wine." That is not the same as "a lot," but it does not tell us whether this would be a thimble full (like is in many cough syrups and elixirs today), or if it were a full glass. It probably does not mean a full pitcher, in any case, and therefore would be unlikely to have caused drunkenness. For some reason, the communion wine which we partake of is given as but a thimble full. Is this to keep us from potential drunkenness? I hesitate to suggest such a sacrilegious thought. But I have often wondered why the communion ceremony boasts such small portions. I am certain the disciples with Jesus had larger ones. It was their supper.

GC: I do not think I am willing to try to guess at what is "drunk." Proverbs allows for drinking to the point of "forgetting." Whatever level that is. Certainly, they did not have blood alcohol tests.

But if God doesn't change, His moral standards don't change. What is right is always right, and what's wrong is always wrong. God may have tolerated some things in the OT. This doesn't mean He approved these things.

You've painted yourself into a corner, Rosangela. IF God doesn't change, and he tolerated something in the OT, then he tolerates it in the NT also, and today as well. (Which, by default, makes it O.K.)

Regardless of whether I miss or not miss any other points, the question still stands for GC and JAK,

The wine which Christ provided for the feast, and that which He gave to the disciples as a symbol of His own blood, was the pure juice of the grape. To this the prophet Isaiah refers when he speaks of the new wine "in the cluster," and says, "Destroy it not; for a blessing is in it." Isaiah 65:8. {DA 149.3}

It was Christ who in the Old Testament gave the warning to Israel, "Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging: and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise." Proverbs 20:1. And He Himself provided no such beverage. Satan tempts men to indulgence that will becloud reason and benumb the spiritual perceptions, but Christ teaches us to bring the lower nature into subjection. His whole life was an example of self-denial. In order to break the power of appetite, He suffered in our behalf the severest test that humanity could endure. It was Christ who directed that John the Baptist should drink neither wine nor strong drink. It was He who enjoined similar abstinence upon the wife of Manoah. And He pronounced a curse upon the man who should put the bottle to his neighbor's lips. Christ did not contradict His own teaching. The unfermented wine which He provided for the wedding guests was a wholesome and refreshing drink. Its effect was to bring the taste into harmony with a healthful appetite. {DA 149.4}

Persons who have inherited an appetite for unnatural stimulants should by no means have wine, beer, or cider in their sight, or within their reach; for this keeps the temptation constantly before them. Regarding sweet cider as harmless, many have no scruples in purchasing it freely. But it remains sweet for a short time only; then fermentation begins. The sharp taste which it then acquires makes it all the more acceptable to many palates, and the user is loath to admit that it has become hard, or fermented. {MH 331.4}

There is danger to health in the use of even sweet cider as ordinarily produced. If people could see what the microscope reveals in regard to the cider they buy, few would be willing to drink it. Often those who manufacture cider for the market are not careful as to the condition of the fruit used, and the juice of wormy and decayed apples is expressed. Those who would not think of using the poisonous, rotten apples in any other way, will drink the cider made from them, and call it a luxury; but the microscope shows that even when fresh from the press, this pleasant beverage is wholly unfit for use. {MH 332.1}

Intoxication is just as really produced by wine, beer, and cider as by stronger drinks. The use of these drinks awakens the taste for those that are stronger, and thus the liquor habit is established. Moderate drinking is the school in which men are educated for the drunkard's career. Yet so insidious is the work of these milder stimulants that the highway to drunkenness is entered before the victim suspects his danger. {MH 332.2}

Some who are never considered really drunk are always under the influence of mild intoxicants. They are feverish, unstable in mind, unbalanced. Imagining themselves secure, they go on and on, until every barrier is broken down, every principle sacrificed. The strongest resolutions are undermined, the highest considerations are not sufficient to keep the debased appetite under the control of reason. {MH 332.3}

The Bible nowhere sanctions the use of intoxicating wine. The wine that Christ made from water at the marriage feast of Cana was the pure juice of the grape. This is the "new wine . . . found in the cluster," of which the Scripture says, "Destroy it not; for a blessing is in it." Isaiah 65:8. {MH 333.1}

It was Christ who, in the Old Testament, gave the warning to Israel, "Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging: and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise." Proverbs 20:1. He Himself provided no such beverage. Satan tempts men to indulgence that will becloud reason and benumb the spiritual perceptions, but Christ teaches us to bring the lower nature into subjection. He never places before men that which would be a temptation. His whole life was an example of self-denial. It was to break the power of appetite that in the forty days' fast in the wilderness He suffered in our behalf the severest test that humanity could endure. It was Christ who directed that John the Baptist should drink neither wine nor strong drink. It was He who enjoined similar abstinence upon the wife of Manoah. Christ did not contradict His own teaching. The unfermented wine that He provided for the wedding guests was a wholesome and refreshing drink. This is the wine that was used by our Saviour and His disciples in the first Communion. It is the wine that should always be used on the Communion table as a symbol of the Saviour's blood. The sacramental service is designed to be soul-refreshing and life-giving. There is to be connected with it nothing that could minister to evil. {MH 333.2}

GC: Honestly, I don't think the Bible advocates drunkenness.

JAK: I do not hold drinking to be a sin, but I do think a "drunken lifestyle" is.

GC: kland, I think this question is irrelevant. The Bible does not address it. I have never tasted alcohol, and have no experience.....I simply cannot quantify "drunk" for you....

Mountain Man,

I agree with Ellen White that the Bible does not "sanction" the use of alcohol. It does, however, "allow" it. It nowhere calls it a "sin" to drink it. It is almost implied, but nothing explicit. The question I would ask, is "Why?" And how does one choose to interpret this ambiguity? It is most certainly just as "gray" as the quails which God Himself had provided but which "sent leanness to their souls." Certainly, the mere provision (under provocation) of the quails to the children of Israel did not represent God's official "sanction" of their consumption. They should have been content with manna. But God gave them what was ultimately the most important: CHOICE.

Mountain Man,

I agree with Ellen White that the Bible does not "sanction" the use of alcohol. It does, however, "allow" it. It nowhere calls it a "sin" to drink it. It is almost implied, but nothing explicit. The question I would ask, is "Why?" And how does one choose to interpret this ambiguity? It is most certainly just as "gray" as the quails which God Himself had provided but which "sent leanness to their souls." Certainly, the mere provision (under provocation) of the quails to the children of Israel did not represent God's official "sanction" of their consumption. They should have been content with manna. But God gave them what was ultimately the most important: CHOICE.

Now I see why you think adultery is ok. Your distinction between sanction and allow doesn't seem very distinct to me. By them indulging in their choice of eating quail: How did that work out for them?

Both of you say being drunk is wrong, but refuse to define what drunk is. So how will you know what is wrong? How can it be irrelevant to ask you to define what you think is wrong?

While the circumstances are different, is it just me or does anyone else see a similarity to a certain senator who, when questioned if he sent a nude photo with his cell phone, refused to answer and proceeded to go on about irrelevant things?

God is the Judge. The Lord looks on the heart, while man can merely see the outward appearance. We are not qualified to make such sharp distinctions which only God can make. And praise the Lord, God is merciful!

So are you now saying that you cannot say that being drunk is wrong and/or a sin?

Kland,

No, I really cannot. I believe it would be a sin for me, yes. For someone else, I would not know. God is the Judge.

GC, you are not being your usual self. You are avoiding questions and overlooking plain statements from the pen of inspiration. Ellen's comments are too clear to misunderstand. They cannot be misconstrued to mean Jesus permitted drinking alcohol and drunkenness in the past but has since then raised the standard to forbid it. I am very surprised at the way your are handling this topic and thread.

I confess that I have a difficult time reconciling her statement that "The Bible nowhere sanctions the use of intoxicating wine."

To me, the Bible does sanction its use.

The only way in which any can be secure against the power of intemperance, is to abstain wholly from wine, beer, and strong drinks.-- Christian Temperance and Bible Hygiene, page 37.

Therefore God explicitly forbids the use of wine and strong drink.--Signs of the Times, July 8, 1880.

God expressly forbade the use of wine that would have an influence to becloud the intellect. {Te 44.1}

The Lord has given special directions in His word in reference to the use of wine and strong drink. He has forbidden their use, and enforced His prohibitions with strong warnings and threatenings. But His forbidding the use of intoxicating beverages is not an exercise of arbitrary authority. He seeks to restrain men, in order that they may escape from the evil results of indulgence in wine and strong drink. Degradation, cruelty, wretchedness, and strife follow as the natural results of intemperance. God has pointed out the consequences of following this course of evil. This He has done that there may not be a perversion of His laws, and that men may be spared the widespread misery resulting from the course of evil men who, for the sake of gain, sell maddening intoxicants.--Drunkenness and Crime, pages 4-6.

With the awful results of indulgence in intoxicating drink before us, how is it that any man or woman who claims to believe in the word of God, can venture to touch, taste, or handle wine or strong drink? Such a practice is certainly out of harmony with their professed faith. {Te 42.3}

The liquor traffic is a terrible scourge to our land, and is sustained and legalized by those who profess to be Christians. In thus doing, the churches make themselves responsible for all the results of this death-dealing traffic. The liquor traffic has its root in hell itself, and it leads to perdition. These are solemn considerations.--Review and Herald, May 1, 1894.

Many, as they read this, will laugh at the warning of danger. They will say, "Surely the little wine or cider that I use cannot hurt me." [If] all would be vigilant and faithful in guarding the little openings made by the moderate use of the so-called harmless wine and cider, the highway to drunkenness would be closed up.--Review and Herald, March 25, 1884.

GC, it is clear you have made up your mind and nothing I quote is going to persuade you otherwise. I have nothing further to say. Thank you for the dialog.

Written in different ages, by men who differed widely in rank and occupation, and in mental and spiritual endowments, the books of the Bible present a wide contrast in style, as well as a diversity in the nature of the subjects unfolded. Different forms of expression are employed by different writers; often the same truth is more strikingly presented by one than by another. And as several writers present a subject under varied aspects and relations, there may appear, to the superficial, careless, or prejudiced reader, to be discrepancy or contradiction, where the thoughtful, reverent student, with clearer insight, discerns the underlying harmony. {GC vi.1}

Some look to us gravely and say, "Don't you think there might have been some mistake in the copyist or in the translators?" This is all probable, and the mind that is so narrow that it will hesitate and stumble over this possibility or probability would be just as ready to stumble over the mysteries of the Inspired Word, because their feeble minds cannot see through the purposes of God. Yes, they would just as easily stumble over plain facts that the common mind will accept, and discern the Divine, and to which God's utterance is plain and beautiful, full of marrow and fatness. All the mistakes will not cause trouble to one soul, or cause any feet to stumble, that would not manufacture difficulties from the plainest revealed truth. {1SM 16.2}

I saw that God had especially guarded the Bible; yet when copies of it were few, learned men had in some instances changed the words, thinking that they were making it more plain, when in reality they were mystifying that which was plain, by causing it to lean to their established views, which were governed by tradition. But I saw that the Word of God, as a whole, is a perfect chain, one portion linking into and explaining another. True seekers for truth need not err; for not only is the Word of God plain and simple in declaring the way of life, but the Holy Spirit is given as a guide in understanding the way to life therein revealed. {EW 220.2}

I think it is absurd, if not blasphemous, to believe Jesus commanded the Jews in Deut 14:26 to convert their tangible tithe into money, travel to a place of His choosing, and then use it to buy whatever they desire, including wine and strong drink, and then consume it in sight of God. First of all, tithe belongs to God. It was not theirs to use as they saw fit. Secondly, the Levites were forbidden to consume wine and strong drink.

Mike,

Those statements are not exactly in the same category. Each of those can be explained simply enough by recognizing that the standard has been raised. The standards may have been different in Bible times. Alternatively, these statements may refer to a particular context, such as the prohibitions for the priesthood. In the book of Exodus, God spoke of a future time when His people should be "a kingdom of priests." In Revelation, that is said to have been accomplished. I believe that refers to our day. As "priests," we are held to the high standard of spiritual leaders, not to the lower standard of the masses.

The Lord has given special directions in His word in reference to the use of wine and strong drink. He has forbidden their use, and enforced His prohibitions with strong warnings and threatenings.

I think it is absurd, if not blasphemous, to believe Jesus commanded the Jews in Deut 14:26 to convert their tangible tithe into money, travel to a place of His choosing, and then use it to buy whatever they desire, including wine and strong drink, and then consume it in sight of God.

M: I think it is absurd, if not blasphemous, to believe Jesus commanded the Jews in Deut 14:26 to convert their tangible tithe into money, travel to a place of His choosing, and then use it to buy whatever they desire, including wine and strong drink, and then consume it in sight of God. First of all, tithe belongs to God. It was not theirs to use as they saw fit. Secondly, the Levites were forbidden to consume wine and strong drink.

GC: Then what do you believe about that passage? That it was not written by Moses? That it was not inspired? That the Hebrew does not say what we see in English? How do you understand Deuteronomy 14? Also, how do you know that what appears to be most clear actually is most accurate?

"There is not always perfect order or apparent unity in the Scriptures." {7BC 945.6} I suspect the original words and meaning of Deut 14:26 was somehow lost over the years. The rest of the Bible and the SOP, as it relates to wine and strong drink, is too clear to misunderstand. The idea that Jesus raised the standard over time is not borne out in the Bible or the SOP. It has always been forbidden and condemned by God for everyone.

MM, don't be absolute on that. It could very well be true and still not be God approving the use of strong drink. As the concept has been addressed elsewhere.

Why not? What does it mean?

The Lord God of heaven ruleth. He alone is above all authorities, over all kings and rulers. The Lord has given special directions in his word in reference to the use of wine and strong drink. He has forbidden their use, and enforced his prohibitions with strong warnings and threatenings. But his warning against the use of intoxicating beverages is not the result of the exercise of arbitrary authority. He has warned men, in order that they may escape from the evil that results from indulgence in wine and strong drink. Degradation, cruelty, wretchedness, and strife follow in the wake of drink. God has laid out the consequences of taking this course of evil, in order that there may not be a turning upside down of his instituted laws; that there may not be misery on all sides, through the increase of evil men who for the sake of gain shall selfishly heap to themselves riches, even through selling strong drink and putting the bottle to their neighbors' lips. The liquor traffic should not be legalized in any of our towns or cities. {RH, May 1, 1894 par. 9}

K: Maybe it (Deut 14:26 and Prov 31:6-7) doesn't accurately reflect the mind of God.

M: Why not? What does it mean?

K: Have you considered the Hunter story?

The Lord has given special directions in his word in reference to the use of wine and strong drink. He has forbidden their use, and enforced his prohibitions with strong warnings and threatenings.

...regardless of whether one is ignorant of where it says so or not.

K: Maybe it (Deut 14:26 and Prov 31:6-7) doesn't accurately reflect the mind of God.

M: Why not? What does it mean?

K: Have you considered the Hunter story?

M: In the Humane Hunter story the father teaches his son how to kill animals in a humane manner. How does this apply to the texts above? Bear in mind Ellen wrote: "The Lord has given special directions in his word in reference to the use of wine and strong drink. He has forbidden their use, and enforced his prohibitions with strong warnings and threatenings."

K: Yes, I agree with Ellen White, believe that she was correct in that the Bible forbids it regardless of whether one is ignorant of where it says so or not. I also believe the Bible forbids killing people. Do you see the connection? Just because He forbids something, doesn't mean it's not in the Bible nor does it mean He won't instruct people how to do the forbidden thing (which they insist on doing) in as least of a damaging manner as possible. Whether this relates to taking the tithe money and buying strong drink would require further study. But, "strong drink" doesn't leave much room for grapejuice, does it?

GC, you have not yet responded to:


This goes against your idea that God has since the OT raised the standard to include forbidding alcohol. Do you agree?

With the awful results of indulgence in intoxicating drink before us, how is it that any man or woman who claims to believe in the word of God, can venture to touch, taste, or handle wine or strong drink? Such a practice is certainly out of harmony with their professed faith. {RH, May 1, 1894 par. 6}

The Lord has given special directions in his word in reference to the use of wine and strong drink. He has forbidden their use, and enforced his prohibitions with strong warnings and threatenings. {RH, May 1, 1894 par. 9}

Either Jesus or Satan showed her what she saw in vision.

M: Either Jesus or Satan showed her what she saw in vision.

J: Those are not necessarily the only two options.

GC, I, too, totally dig your chart. Nice work. However, I'm surprised you believe she applied her forbid/warning/threat comment exclusively to people in leadership positions. In the same article, just three paragraphs preceding the one under examination, she wrote:


I see no indication she intended for us to assume "any man or woman who claims to believe in the word of God" excludes everyone except people in leadership positions.

No, I don't see a connection between "do not murder" and "do not drink alcohol". Jesus never commanded anyone to commit murder. Nor did He ever permit it or tolerate in the Humane Hunter sense. Jesus did, on the other hand, command godly people to kill ungodly people. For example, combat and capital. I realize you disagree.

As for "strong drink" in Deut 14:26 and Prov 31:6-7 I suspect the translators botched it up. "I saw that God had especially guarded the Bible; yet when copies of it were few, learned men had in some instances changed the words . . ." {EW 220.2} Either this is a valid explanation or JAK is right about Ellen being wrong. Since she said, "I saw", it places things in peril, that is, it implies we cannot trust it when she says "I saw". Either Jesus or Satan showed her what she saw in vision.

GC, I think it is clear she said God never permitted or tolerated alcohol consumption. Which means Deut 14:26 and Prov 31:6-7 cannot be taken literally. Again, I suspect the translators goofed.

Just like it comes across to me that JAK and GC have some motivation for wanting the Bible to support drinking, you must have some motivation for the Bible to support killing. Why is that so? Why so, for something which is so contrary to God's character? I recall in grade school believing with great satisfaction, that another kid who was being mean, that God was going to get him and burn him! That made me happy. But it also gave me a background sense of fear of what God would do to me if I should step over the line. But now, I've come to realize that God is not like that at all, that my belief was due to my selfish reasons. Is there something of your belief the same way? Is there something in each of us of a similar nature, whether it be God getting our enemies or drinking or smoking or having plural wives, which causes us to read into the Bible and insist it says a certain thing regardless of anything which says contrary?

Just like it comes across to me that JAK and GC have some motivation for wanting the Bible to support drinking...

What do you surmise about my motivations here, kland? I do not drink.

The fact is, kland, I don't. I don't want the Bible to teach such. It doesn't, either. It clearly outlines the woes of drink. BUT, I must accept the Bible's clear teachings without allowing my own biases and/or prejudices to prevent me from understanding them. This means being honest with myself and with the Word of God. That honesty, kland, is what leads me to recognize that the Bible does indeed allow certain things which to me seem counter-intuitive.

There is no surer way of weakening our spirituality than by being envious, suspicious of one another, full of faultfinding and evil surmising. "This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish. For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work. But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be entreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy. And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace of them that make peace." James 3:15-18. {CCh 44.5}

Harmony and union existing among men of varied dispositions is the strongest witness that can be borne that God has sent His Son into the world to save sinners. It is our privilege to bear this witness. But, in order to do this, we must place ourselves under Christ's command. Our characters must be molded in harmony with His character, our wills must be surrendered to His will. Then we shall work together without a thought of collision. {CCh 44.6}

Little differences dwelt upon lead to actions that destroy Christian fellowship. Let us not allow the enemy thus to gain the advantage over us. Let us keep drawing nearer to God and to one another. Then we shall be as trees of righteousness, planted by the Lord, and watered by the river of life. And how fruitful we shall be! Did not Christ say: "Herein is My Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit"? John 15:8. {CCh 45.1}

time to do some music "editing" (He turned the water into GRAPEJUICE)

We were delayed one day longer than we designed. I had ague in my ear, and head was involved. I suffered much pain. Dared not be on the road. I consulted a dentist. He said the teeth were not the cause of this affliction. Then I took alcohol, sweat, and worked my best to subdue the pain, and the relief came. I am made aware that all this trouble was the result of a severe cold.... {MR1033 17.1}

Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish, and wine unto those that be of heavy hearts. Let him drink, and forget his poverty, and remember his misery no more. (Proverbs 31:6-7)

Johann, do you feel there is a point where someone is too old to hear the gospel?

Also, if you think preaching refers to the health message, do you think nurses are preaching when they give medicine to the patients?
That is, government sanctioned preaching?

Green, I have an objection to your use of the word, "moderation".

If each evening, I go to the cupboard and get my bottle of "solanine" and take just a half a teaspoon of it, do you think that is considered "moderation"?
And don't get bogged down if you think a half a teaspoon, is too much. Do you consider any amount, intentional taken, for no intended medical purposes, "moderation"?

Potato plant poisoning - green tubers and sprouts

Potato plant poisoning occurs when someone eats the green tubers or new sprouts of the potato plant.

This is for information only and not for use in the treatment or management of an actual poison exposure. If you have an exposure, you should call your local emergency number (such as 911) or the National Poison Control Center at 1-800-222-1222.

Poisonous Ingredient

Solanine (very toxic even in small amounts)

Where Found

The poison is found throughout the plant, but especially in green potatoes and new sprouts. Never eat potatoes that are spoiled or green below the skin. Always throw away the sprouts.

Potatoes that are not green and have had any sprouts removed are safe to eat.

Symptoms

• Delirium
• Diarrhea
• Dilated pupils
• Fever
• Hallucinations
• Headache
• Loss of sensation
• Lower than normal body temperature (hypothermia)
• Paralysis
• Shock
• Slow pulse
• Slowed breathing
• Stomach or abdominal pain
• Vision changes
• Vomiting

Home Care

Seek immediate medical help. Do NOT make a person throw up unless told to do so by poison control or a health care professional.

Before Calling Emergency

Determine the following information:

• Patient's age, weight, and condition
• Time it was swallowed
• Amount swallowed
• Name and part of plant that was swallowed

Poison Control

The National Poison Control Center (1-800-222-1222) can be called from anywhere in the United States. This national hotline number will let you talk to experts in poisoning. They will give you further instructions.

This is a free and confidential service. All local poison control centers in the United States use this national number. You should call if you have any questions about poisoning or poison prevention. It does NOT need to be an emergency. You can call for any reason, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

See: Poison control center - emergency number

What to Expect at the Emergency Room

The health care provider will measure and monitor your vital signs, including temperature, pulse, breathing rate, and blood pressure. Symptoms will be treated as appropriate. You may receive:

• Activated charcoal
• Breathing support
• Fluids through a vein (IV)
• Tube through the mouth into the stomach to wash out the stomach (gastric lavage)

Outlook (Prognosis)

How well you do depends on the amount of poison swallowed and how quickly treatment is received. The faster you get medical help, the better the chance for recovery.

Death has been reported, but is rare.

Alternative Names

Solanum tuberosum poisoning

References

Hostetler MA, Schneider SM. Poisonous plants. In: Tintinalli JE, Kelen GD, Stapczynski JS, Ma OJ, Cline DM, eds. Emergency Medicine: A Comprehensive Study Guide. 6th ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 2004:chap 205.

Graeme K. Toxic plant ingestions. In: Auerbach PS, ed. Wilderness Medicine. 5th ed. Philadelphia, Pa: Mosby Elsevier; 2007:chap 58.

Update Date: 12/15/2011

Updated by: Eric Perez, MD, St. Luke's / Roosevelt Hospital Center, NY, NY, and Pegasus Emergency Group (Meadowlands and Hunterdon Medical Centers), NJ. Review provided by VeriMed Healthcare Network.

Highlights
Exposure to high levels of cyanide harms the brain and heart, and may cause coma and death. Exposure to lower levels may result in breathing difficulties, heart pains, vomiting, blood changes, headaches, and enlargement of the thyroid gland. Cyanide has been found in at least 471 of the 1,662 National Priorities List sites identified by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

What is cyanide?
Cyanide is usually found joined with other chemicals to form compounds. Examples of simple cyanide compounds are hydrogen cyanide, sodium cyanide and potassium cyanide. Certain bacteria, fungi, and algae can produce cyanide, and cyanide is found in a number of foods and plants. In certain plant foods, including almonds, millet sprouts, lima beans, soy, spinach, bamboo shoots, and cassava roots (which are a major source of food in tropical countries), cyanides occur naturally as part of sugars or other naturally-occurring compounds. However, the edible parts of plants that are eaten in the United States, including tapioca which is made from cassava roots, contain relatively low amounts of cyanide.

The wine which Christ provided for the feast, and that which He gave to the disciples as a symbol of His own blood, was the pure juice of the grape. To this the prophet Isaiah refers when he speaks of the new wine "in the cluster," and says, "Destroy it not; for a blessing is in it." Isaiah 65:8. {DA 149.3}

It was Christ who in the Old Testament gave the warning to Israel, "Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging: and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise." Proverbs 20:1. And He Himself provided no such beverage. Satan tempts men to indulgence that will becloud reason and benumb the spiritual perceptions, but Christ teaches us to bring the lower nature into subjection. His whole life was an example of self-denial. In order to break the power of appetite, He suffered in our behalf the severest test that humanity could endure. It was Christ who directed that John the Baptist should drink neither wine nor strong drink. It was He who enjoined similar abstinence upon the wife of Manoah. And He pronounced a curse upon the man who should put the bottle to his neighbor's lips. Christ did not contradict His own teaching. The unfermented wine which He provided for the wedding guests was a wholesome and refreshing drink. Its effect was to bring the taste into harmony with a healthful appetite. {DA 149.4}

That makes it appear as if even a tiny amount would be too much, doesn't it? Certainly, a half a teaspoon of pure solanine would be lethal. Anything lethal is immoderate, would you agree? So a half a teaspoon would be immoderate.

Jesus commands us not to drink alcoholic beverages (wine and strong drink). I'm not going to stress over cough medicine.

No, not at all, if you are given the opportunity.
The health message is the right arm of our message. We do way too little of proclaiming it.

In a government hospital it is the medical director, physicians, and senior staff who decide what to do with the patients. Is this the place to give the patients something else?

Umm...?
Umm....

How about cooking with wine?

Green, you always amaze me that you seem to understand my point, agree with it, and then contradict yourself.

And, you may want to do some further searches about green potatoes and apricots regarding the amount needed to cause harm. Folklore repeated does not make a fact. Poinsettia comes to mind...

Not going to stress over cooking with wine. My judgment has never been impaired because I used cough medicine or cooked with wine.

The less the attention is called to the stomach after a meal, the better. If you are in constant fear that your food will hurt you, it most assuredly will. Forget self, and think of something cheerful. {CH 53.2}

Not going to stress over

For those who can use them, good vegetables, prepared in a healthful manner, are better than soft mushes or porridge. Fruits used with thoroughly cooked bread two or three days old will be more healthful than fresh bread. This, with slow and thorough mastication, will furnish all that the system requires. {CD 108.2}

497. Bread which is two or three days old is more healthful than new bread. Bread dried in the oven is one of the most wholesome articles of diet. {CD 317.2}

Maybe I should have asked, do you think Ellen White stressed over anything?

Of course, you can avoid this problem by using baking powder, in place of yeast, to raise your bread.

B has been very deficient. While in her best condition of health, his wife was not provided with a plenty of wholesome food and with proper clothing. Then, when she needed extra clothing and extra food, and that of a simple yet nutritious quality, it was not allowed her. Her system craved material to convert into blood; but he would not provide it. A moderate amount of milk and sugar, a little salt, white bread raised with yeast for a change, graham flour prepared in a variety of ways by other hands than her own, plain cake with raisins, rice pudding with raisins, prunes, and figs, occasionally, and many other dishes I might mention, would have answered the demand of appetite. If he could not obtain some of these things, a little domestic wine would have done her no injury; it would have been better for her to have it than to do without it. In some cases, even a small amount of the least hurtful meat would do less injury than to suffer strong cravings for it. {TSDF 30.5}

The bread was horrible. Just use yeast. Yeast provides a good source of B-vitamins. Not only did Weimar's baking powder solution not provide B-vitamins, it also destroyed some of the B-vitamins naturally present in the grains.

Of course, at that time, Weimar's bread had been the type to become the object of jokes--e.g. cutting it with a chainsaw--because it was so hard. One had to run the toast through the commercial toaster two or three times to get it to brown, and if you had put peanut butter and applesauce on it, you needed a sharp knife and fork solution to be able to cut it on your plate! Once Weimar switched from using yeast to using baking powder, this all changed and the bread was lighter and fluffier, as bread should be.

All of Weimar's problem could have been solved by putting sugar into their bread recipe, as all good bread should have. The yeast consumes the sugar, converts it to CO2 and alcohol, until there is no sugar left. The CO2 is what puts the bubbles into the dough to raise the bread. The alcohol? well, it will evaporate out during baking. But the good folk at Weimar believed that sugar would "clot your veins," so they would not use it.

The bread was horrible. Just use yeast. Yeast provides a good source of B-vitamins. Not only did Weimar's baking powder solution not provide B-vitamins, it also destroyed some of the B-vitamins naturally present in the grains.

Of course, at that time, Weimar's bread had been the type to become the object of jokes--e.g. cutting it with a chainsaw--because it was so hard. One had to run the toast through the commercial toaster two or three times to get it to brown, and if you had put peanut butter and applesauce on it, you needed a sharp knife and fork solution to be able to cut it on your plate! Once Weimar switched from using yeast to using baking powder, this all changed and the bread was lighter and fluffier, as bread should be.

All of Weimar's problem could have been solved by putting sugar into their bread recipe, as all good bread should have. The yeast consumes the sugar, converts it to CO2 and alcohol, until there is no sugar left. The CO2 is what puts the bubbles into the dough to raise the bread. The alcohol? well, it will evaporate out during baking. But the good folk at Weimar believed that sugar would "clot your veins," so they would not use it.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Taste is sometimes in the buds of the beholder. When I first converted to wholesome food it wanted for taste. But now it tastes great. A plain carrot straight from the garden is as good as candy - better!

I recently heard some alcohol remains after cooking. That's why you should wait a day before eating it.

After cooking bread, is there any B-vitamins left? For some reason I thought they were destroyed.

Green, are you saying yeast survives 212 degrees Fahrenheit?

If not, what are you saying?

If so, what then are you saying: that yeast dies after a day?

Bread which is two or three days old is more healthful than new bread. Bread dried in the oven is one of the most wholesome articles of diet. {CD 317.2}

Bread should be light and sweet. Not the least taint of sourness should be tolerated. The loaves should be small, and so thoroughly baked that, as far as possible, the yeast germs shall be destroyed. When hot, or new, raised bread of any kind is difficult of digestion. It should never appear on the table. This rule does not, however, apply to unleavened bread. Fresh rolls made of wheaten meal, without yeast or leaven, and baked in a well-heated oven, are both wholesome and palatable. . . . {CD 316.4}

It sounds like to me you are hanging on, as far as possible, the yeast germs shall be destroyed, to mean that they are NOT destroyed.

Do you mean that yeast dies after 2-3 days?


(one right after another...)

Would you like yeast to be growing in your gut? Are you acquainted with anyone who has had Candida?

Reading from another site prompted me to create this topic and ask the following question:

Is it OK for a Christian to drink alcohol?

Sitting in a room with temperatures hot enough to make water boil may sound crazy but that is exactly what participants at Finland's World Sauna Championships have been doing for more than a decade.

Five-time champion Timo Kaukonen had become adept at enduring the tournament's 110C (230F) heat, lasting over 16 minutes in 2003.

...

Most sauna users stick to temperatures of around 80C [176F] for periods of five to six minutes, according to Finnish Sauna Society chief executive Kristian Miettinen.

However, a self-confessed "sauna freak", he usually heats the room to 100C [212F], while others regularly prefer short three to four-minute bursts at 130 to 140C [266 to 284F].

...people have safely enjoyed heat at 160C [320F].

How can you tell if something is done if you can't take a peek inside? When it comes to bread, there are actually a few ways to make sure your lovely loaf is perfectly baked, every time!1. Visually - The more you bake, the more you'll be able to gauge how a loaf of bread should look when it's nearing doneness. For the most part, the crust should be dry, very firm, and a deep golden brown color with darker spots here and there. If the crust is very pale, give it a few more minutes. Recipes usually describe how the bread should look at the end of cooking (the good recipes, anyway!), so you can use that as a guide until you're more familiar with the loaf.

...

3. Take the Internal Temperature - Insert an instant read thermometer into center of the loaf. (If you go at an angle and through the side or bottom, you can minimize the visual evidence!) Most breads are finished baking at about 190°. Breads enriched with butter, eggs, or milk are finished when the internal temperature is closer to 200°.

If you're ever in doubt, it's better to cook the loaf a little longer than to undercook it. An extra five minutes isn't going to burn the crust, and the worst that will happen is that your bread will be a bit on the dry side. But better dry than un-baked!

If their body temperature rose to dangerous levels, this could have proven fatal, according to John Brewer, professor of sport at the University of Bedfordshire.

While the core body temperature is between 37 and 38C, a rise of just four degrees could cause hyperthermia (overheating), collapse and coma, he says.

"The main defence mechanism is sweating - the loss of that latent heat into the environment from evaporation of sweat that causes the body to stay cool," says Prof Brewer.

During exercise, for example, sweating helps to regulate the body temperature below dangerous levels at about 39C.

What temperatures can yeast survive to?

Bread should be light and sweet. Not the least taint of sourness should be tolerated. The loaves should be small and so thoroughly baked that, so far as possible, the yeast germs shall be destroyed. When hot or new, raised bread of any kind is difficult of digestion. It should never appear on the table. This rule does not, however, apply to unleavened bread. Fresh rolls made of wheaten meal without yeast or leaven, and baked in a well-heated oven, are both wholesome and palatable. {MH 301.2}

If Mrs. White is to be believed, kland, it appears most of the yeast does die during baking but enough may well survive to cause us problems. I'm not a better expert than she is. I don't think modern scientists are either. Do you?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I too accept Ellen White's statement on this issue. Even though I like hot bread, I will pray for God's help to stop.

Which bread? In USA today bread keeps forever due to all the chemical poisons that is in it, so it does not make much difference how old it is when you eat it.

In our country we omit all of those chemicals, but then the bread starts getting moldy on the second day.

As I said kland, because I trust the counsel from Ellen White.

It has just gotten that way for me after many years that I can trust her writings to this extent. I know people want a natural explanation as well. Most times that can be done.

But, what about the minority of the time when we can't make a strong naturalistic argument? I believe Ellen White anyway.

Which bread? In USA today bread keeps forever due to all the chemical poisons that is in it, so it does not make much difference how old it is when you eat it.

In our country we omit all of those chemicals, but then the bread starts getting moldy on the second day.