Alcoholism: an unclean unchristian habit

וְעָשָׂה יְהוָה צְבָאֹות לְכָל־הָֽעַמִּים בָּהָר הַזֶּה מִשְׁתֵּה שְׁמָנִים מִשְׁתֵּה שְׁמָרִים שְׁמָנִים מְמֻחָיִם שְׁמָרִים מְזֻקָּקִֽים׃

"and [he]will prepare JHWH Lord of Hosts for all the peoples on the mountain this:
the feast of exquisite foods,
a banquet of [sha-marim] - fine drinks
the best, with marrow;
fine drinks [sha-marim] PURIFIED. [Matzquqim]."

Note that the second Hebrew word, rendered "aged wine" in the first stanza is rendered simply "wines" in the second. There is no difference in the Hebrew word. The translator is acting on his own hunch, because he doesn't know a thing about ancient Hebrew culture or the meaning of Isaiah here in this place.

You are building simply on the imagination of the translator, in this case Tyndale, carried over to the Bishop's Bible and hence the KJV etc.

The translation is wrong, and the exposition is worthless.

The important descriptive adjective here is PURIFIED, meaning HOLY and PURE, and not some garbage brewed in a whorehouse.



​

 

First, I don't agree with your claim regarding alcohol content.

You have rendered "Shaqar" as 'fermented drink'. this is nonsense.

Second:

Numbers 28:7 The accompanying drink offering is to be a quarter of a hin of shaqar with each lamb.
Pour out the drink offering to the LORD at the sanctuary.

 

The US government had no problem murdering 250 firemen either, when it pulled WTC building 2 and 7.

http://911truthaustralia.com/wtc7.html

What would Jesus do?

Who is your Lord?

 

There it is. He thinks that the American government planned 9/11. Talk about delusions.

I wonder when he's going to bring up Fred Phelps and how much he admires him?

 

Not much, but he gives a good sermon on Sodom.

 

What goes on in his head....LOL. Told ya he is a laugh a minute....you really cant predict but you know it will be bizarre.....so strap yourself in.:laugh::laugh::laugh:

BTW......whats in your wallet! ROFL!!!

 

I see. So your translation is correct and the vast majority of Biblical language scholars throughout the ages are all wrong. I get it.

 

I see. So your translation is correct and the vast majority of Biblical language scholars throughout the ages are all wrong. I get it.

 

And honey is bee vomit. Is it okay to eat honey?

 

I dunno. Does it slow your reflexes,
or affect your ability to safely operate heavy machinery at high speed?
If so, no.

If you drink enough yeast-piss,
you'll bee tasting your own vomit.

If you feel compelled to eat molds and fungi,
why not buy some yogurt?
Its the yeast you can do in this situation.

 

Men have been wrong since Adam.

Let me know when you're really InTheLight.

 

No, it does not. My uncle is a beekeeper so my family has a lot of honey. Do you like honey?

 

Matthew 7:13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:

 

All I can say is, you're comparing apples and orangutans;

Honey is definitely a healthy food;
Alcohol is definitely a poisonous drug.

On Sesame Street they have a simple song for kids:
"One of these things is not like the other...
One of these things are kinda the same..."

 

Who first wrote, "There is no private interpretation of Scripture?"

 

The Hebrew language, like any well-studied language, isn't really private.

The diversity of opinions on translational issues is a historical fact. This doesn't make one opinion or the other the 'wrong' one. Different levels of knowledge and ability existed during different periods, such as the early Reformation and now. Progress requires updating translations. That is not 'private interpretation', its just the increase of knowledge in the Last Days.

If there are more than two opposing opinions on a translational issue, they can all be wrong, but only one of them can be right, and nothing guarantees that the opinion with the most votes should win or be right.

 

Some guy called Pete.

So, Nazaroo, you're a Nazirite. So all this stuff about you being Anglican is bogus, is it?

 

You haven't got a grip.

I'm an Anglican. And I'm a Nazarite, because I keep the Nazarite vow in Numbers 6.

Nazarite isn't a denomination or a new religion.
Its the only voluntary law in the Old Testament,
as far as timing and planning is concerned.

 

My grip's fine thanks. I don't see how you can be a Nazirite and remain an Anglican, anymore than I can see how the Episcapostate Church can remain Anglican whilst doing what it does.