Was the wine in the Bible, Non-alcoholic?

[Squink]

We did this one just a bit ago. Here it is:
Is the wine in the bible really grape juice?

2001 ?
God, I’m getting old! :eek:

[silenus]

@Squink

2001 ?
God, I’m getting old! :eek:

Come on over.

[Ludovic]

It wasn’t wine: it was Jesus Juice!

[Squink]

@Diogenes the Cynic

Wine and Rome

Wine Making in Ancient Egypt
White wine turns up in King Tutankhamen’s tomb:

Of the six jars, five contained white wine, the researchers conclude. Three of them were made in the Western Nile Delta in an estate owned by the temple of the god Aton, near modern Alexandria. An amphora marked “Year 5. Sweet wine of the Estate of Aton of the Western River. Chief vintner Nakht” also had white wine,

[bup]

@A.R. Cane

I’ve heard this explanation before, but I think it’s unlike that there enough alcohol content in wine to effect the quality of the water. I think it’s more likely the water was added to increase volume, especially by the poorer people.

How much alcohol do you think is needed to kill bacteria?

They didn’t understand there were one-celled organisms in the water they were killing, but they knew that putting wine in the water made it safe to drink.

There was a Scientific American article a few years ago about what a recent concept tea-totalling is because people were afraid to drink plain water.

@HeyHomie

My denomination (Independent Christian Churches/Churches of Christ, or Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement if you want to get really technical), is rather uptight and, IMHO, intellectually dishonest about this.

Presbyterians explicitly use it so alcoholics can take communion without falling off the wagon. I imagine that’s the same for most denominations (that don’t bar alcohol outright like some Southern Baptist churches).

[Excalibre]

@Ephesians

Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit.

Wait, so the Bible says I shouldn’t get drunk on wine, but instead on spirits? Which spirits, exactly? Should I be filled with a nice old single malt scotch?

[AWB]

Genesis 19:30-36

30. And Lot went up out of Zoar, and dwelt in the mountain, and his two daughters with him; for he feared to dwell in Zoar: and he dwelt in a cave, he and his two daughters.
31. And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth:
32. Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.
33. And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.
34. And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said unto the younger, Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our Father.
35. And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.
36. Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father.

Not something that can be done with non-alcoholic wine. :dubious:

[tomndebb]

The Romans diluted their wine too but just not as much as the Greeks did.

Well, if you were starting off with retsina, you’d probably dilute it a bit more, too.

[naita]

@bup

How much alcohol do you think is needed to kill bacteria?

They didn’t understand there were one-celled organisms in the water they were killing, but they knew that putting wine in the water made it safe to drink.

There was a Scientific American article a few years ago about what a recent concept tea-totalling is because people were afraid to drink plain water.

Well I know that you can’t make wine stronger by having it ferment indefinitely, because it reaches the point where the alcohol kills the yeast. Mix it with water and you have something that’s dilute enough yeast could live in it, and I suspect bacteria as well. A weak cite I know, but Wikipedia agrees with me: “Wine with less than 16% ethanol cannot protect itself against bacteria.” If it can’t protect itself it seems unlikely it’ll kill off all the nastiness in the water you mix with it, especially since you don’t add that water all that long in advance.

They may have thought mixing water with wine made the water safe, but I’d like a decent cite for that before I think it was a case of making the wine last longer and not get you drunk as fast.

I haven’t read the SA article you mention but I suspect the people who were afraid to drink plain water were Europeans of a few hundred years ago. And they would have avoided water completely as much as possible, replacing it with beer, not mixing it with anything.

[Mangetout]

@naita

I haven’t read the SA article you mention but I suspect the people who were afraid to drink plain water were Europeans of a few hundred years ago. And they would have avoided water completely as much as possible, replacing it with beer, not mixing it with anything.

And just for the record, beer protects the drinker from waterborne pathogens not primarily by its alcohol content, but by virtue of the fact that it is boiled before fermentation.

[Wallenstein]

Just as an aside - when this topic was last discussed here and here I posted the following… it’s not all about misplaced puritanism, sometimes there are v. good reasons for using grape juice in communion:

If you are part of a Christian denomination that does a lot of work with disadvantaged communities (as the Methodists and Baptists in the UK have historically done), you will encouter many people with substance misuse issues.

Remember that bit in the Lord’s Prayer about “lead us not into temptation”? Well, a lot of groups decided that in order to minister effectively and sensitively to individuals with substance misuse issues, it was appropriate to give up alcohol completely.

For a recovering alcoholic, there’s no such thing as “drinking in moderation” - you avoid it completely, and in order to help with this Christians who offer spiritual and practical support avoid booze, in order to “lead not thy fellow man into temptation” (sort of thing!).

No doubt for some it’s driven by a puritantical streak, but mostly it’s about setting an example and recognising that although I might be able to drink in moderation, those I’m trying to help cannot.

So yes, alcohol per se is part of God’s wonderful world and can / should be enjoyed, but if you’re working with people who have alcohol misuse problems going teetotal is the decent thing to do.

[irishgirl]

I like my church- it’s Presbyterian and Northern Irish, so there’s a good few of the congregation who have taken The Pledge (a vow never to drink), also, of course, there are a good few members of the congregation who are recovering alcoholics.

So- grape juice for communion, but wine is offered at all church social functions (along with tea, coffee, juice and water). Thus, if there is a choice, you get to choose wine, if drinking is compulsory, it’s non alcoholic.

IMHO- god has no problem with alcohol, as long as it is used responsibly.

[Nava]

@Chronos

I’m going to have to ask for a cite on this. Certainly, in some times and places, wine was cheaper than potable water. But for making adobe, it wouldn’t make a difference whether the water was potable, and I can’t see how wine could possibly be cheaper than non-potable water. What did they irrigate the vinyards with, more wine?

They didn’t irrigate the vineyards. They weren’t "vine"yards… no vines, the grapes used for wine through most of Spain’s history grow on knee-high “trees” that need very little water. It’s the same kind of places where they grow cereals, but the cereals would get the better land. These grapes are black and very small, little bigger than blackberries. Pick a bunch of store-bought grapes, look for a runt: that’s the size we’re talking about.

A reason they grew grapes in that area was, precisely, that this variety could be grown without irrigation. What little rainfall is there is enough. This is in Teruel, which didn’t get irrigation until Franco earned the nickname of “Frank the Frog” in the '50s and '60s (he always seemed to be inaugurating some canal or dam).

I know some people who used to grow wine grapes in my part of the country: they took them out because of EU regulations (basically the gov’t paid them to pull them out) and griped that “nothing fuckin’ else grows there, dammit, slope’s too steep to put a tractor in, grumblegrumble”; before they ripped the grapes out, I remember hearing them complain whenever it threatened to rain (“rain’s bad for the grapes, it’s sun they need”). I hear farmers elsewhere are Masters of Grumbling, too

I don’t remember the name of the specific area, sorry. But it’s several villages, south of Calatayud. And if you don’t want to take my “I’ve been there, we’re talking about my country” authority, sorry - why would you like a story I heard in person better if you saw it written in Spanish, in a webpage, by the current secretaries of the towns involved? It’s the explanation they give; some of those houses were built within the 20th century. Many of the villages in Teruel still were getting all their water from a single well in the 70s; the cost of opening a well for “non-potable” water would have been the same as for a “potable” one, so why would you bother go second-rate? And if you want me to find you some statistic, you’re out of luck: we’re talking about a time before people paid for water. All they knew in these villages is that they had enough wine to make adobes with… and not enough water.

My SIL’s parents are from a village in a different area of Teruel. They put faucets inside the grandparents’ house in the '90s and an actual WC. Until then, there had been a shower (divested from the general water pipe, which only opened to a faucet outside the house’s walls) in the yard and they had showered in swimming clothes. A couple of years back, the last house that’s still in use got the faucets inside and there was a motion to have a festival; they ended up having only a feast instead.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@naita

Well I know that you can’t make wine stronger by having it ferment indefinitely, because it reaches the point where the alcohol kills the yeast. Mix it with water and you have something that’s dilute enough yeast could live in it, and I suspect bacteria as well. A weak cite I know, but Wikipedia agrees with me: “Wine with less than 16% ethanol cannot protect itself against bacteria.” If it can’t protect itself it seems unlikely it’ll kill off all the nastiness in the water you mix with it, especially since you don’t add that water all that long in advance.

They may have thought mixing water with wine made the water safe, but I’d like a decent cite for that before I think it was a case of making the wine last longer and not get you drunk as fast.

I haven’t read the SA article you mention but I suspect the people who were afraid to drink plain water were Europeans of a few hundred years ago. And they would have avoided water completely as much as possible, replacing it with beer, not mixing it with anything.

I found this cite along with one or two others. I guess it’s not just the alcohol.

Since ancient times, in countries like Israel, Rome and (more recently) France, water was too polluted to drink untreated. By mixing 1 part red wine to 3 parts water, sufficient purification was achieved. For killing bacteria in laboratory conditions, red wine ranked 3 to 4 times more effective than pure alcohol or tequila. The effective ingredient is believed to be phenol compounds enhanced from charred wood of the wine-aging casks. This is important because phenol compounds appear to be related to sulfur drugs previously used in basic antibiotics.

[JRDelirious]

And in one of Paul’s letters (to Timothy? I’m not sure now), the Apostle beseeches his correspondent to remember to add wine to his water, for the sake of his delicate stomach. So there’s even biblical reference to health benefits from wine.

Nitpick – in the second quote from DtC’s last post I think it should say “sulfA drugs”.

[minor7flat5]

@Snickers

It’s been answered already, but right there in the OP is your answer. The Adventists. They’re a special breed all their own.

See, that particular branch of fundamentalist protestantism is rabid about its dietary laws and practices. Unlike the Jews, however, who at least have the sense to say, “G_d said so, that’s why,” the Adventists attempt to back up at least a few of their practices with scientific “facts” that, to call them questionable, would give them far too much credence and would insult questionable.

Wait. That’s not fair. What I mean to say is that many of their dietary practices have valid reasons behind them, but they take it too far. For example, in the church that I grew up with, thin was in. Now, everyone should watch what they eat and indeed it’s healthy to do so, but some members of the church would go so far to say that those who were overweight had lesser moral character because obviously they were easily tempted and too quick to give in. Vegetarianism is encouraged in the church, and for valid reasons and health concerns, but fanatics will go so far as to say that eating meat clouds the mind and degrades one’s relationship with others and with God. As another example, one woman in my church was so terrified of eating sugar (and tried to get others to stop eating it as well) that she claimed that eating it was just like drinking alcohol because it fermets in the stomach during digestion and will have exactly the same effects. This is patently nonsense, and my father had to tell her so. Out of politeness, he refrained from telling her that trying to avoid all sugar is an exercise in futility, as nearly all foods contain it naturally. And so it goes.

Adventists are one of the groups that avoid alcohol (serving grape juice during communions), and they do it for valid reasons, but as with many things, they take it too far. Many are what I would deem pathological about avoiding alcohol, fearing it to unhealthy levels. It doesn’t surprise me that members of that church have dreamed up a way to explain it biblically, regardless of how shaky their biblical foundation might be. It wouldn’t be the first time - the Adventists have published a translation of the Bible that contains their dogma and unique beliefs sprinkled liberally throughout.

Snicks, raised Adventist and now recovering.

I think your final statement sums things up and I’m sorry that you have had such unpleasant experiences. You are painting an entire denomination with the same brush, even though you are discussing issues with an individual congregation or individual “fanatics.”

Of course, you knew an Adventist would come along and say something. Anyway, my wife and I eat meat with pleasure, and we serve it when we have guests over for lunch after asking about their preference. Yes, I have encountered people with extreme views, but they are just that: extreme. I can’t say that I have surveyed all Protestant religions to be sure, but I’m pretty confident that you can find folks in other denominations that are extreme about their doctrines.

One evening an annoying self-righteous woman at church started giving me guff over my diet when I mentioned what I had had for breakfast. My patience was thin, so I simply said “Well, since we’re talking about our lifestyles, how often to you exercise? I went for a 12 mile run this afternoon to make up for the crap I ate. How about you join me for a nice 10 mile jog tomorrow afternoon were you can explain to me why I am eating wrong.” She was speechless.

As far as the Bible goes, I think the two most common translations I see in use in our congregation are the King James and the New Living, in that order. I have never seen anyone carrying a secret “club” version (that doesn’t mean that one can’t exist somewhere).

Oh yes… for the OP: it is true that many Adventists fall in the “grape juice” camp. For the Biblical reasons already covered, I think that’s hogwash: it was alcoholic wine, plain and simple. Of course, that’s just my own opinion.

[Snickers]

The translation I was referring to is The Clear Word published by the Review & Herald (apparently they’ve taken the word “Bible” off the cover now due to controversy) - members of my church raved about it. And the SDA church espoused it wholeheartedly. Tons of others spoke out against the dangers of the revision as it inserted text and beliefs not found in other mainstream, academic biblical translations. To be fair, the prologue to the book apparently contains a disclaimer that the book is a paraphrase and not a new translation, but misleading copy on the cover of the book itself made it clear that the publishers hoped it would be taken as one. You can find any number of articles about the controversy via Google.

Have I painted with a broad brush? Absolutely I have. And I apologize for that. Most of the SDA churches around here are very conservative, and the members of my church are quite dogmatic. They have little time for questioners and openly deride others for any opposing views. Which is a shame.

[Chronos]

They didn’t irrigate the vineyards. They weren’t "vine"yards… no vines, the grapes used for wine through most of Spain’s history grow on knee-high “trees” that need very little water. It’s the same kind of places where they grow cereals, but the cereals would get the better land. These grapes are black and very small, little bigger than blackberries. Pick a bunch of store-bought grapes, look for a runt: that’s the size we’re talking about.

OK, but they still need water. A plant that needs very little water will put even less water into its fruits. It’d be significantly more efficient to collect the rainwater and use it directly.

[whole_bean]

@Lemur866

You know, in the Bible Jesus turned water into wine. But then Chuck Norris turned that wine into beer.

and I can complete the cycle by turning beer to water.

[bup]

@whole bean

and I can complete the cycle by turning beer to water.

And American mass-produced beer short-circuits the cycle by selling it right back to you.