Did Jesus turn the water into wine, or grape juice

My suggestion would be to open up your 1611 KJV and read the translators' notes on the subject, and then open up your Greek text and look at it.

But, my guess is that you won't.

 

Hope of Glory:
The one word has only one meaning formula does not work in Scripture.

 

Where did I say that it did? Notice that I am pointing to the context here of a couple hundred or so other passages, plus the KJV translators' notes, plus preferred usage. (However, there are many cases where people will try to make a word say something that it cannot say.)

Now, back to the first mention principle:

Apply it. The first mention in Scripture of wine is alcoholic wine, and the first mention of drunkenness results in a curse.

 

To the first question, Yes-- I just don't at what rate. To the secnd question, Definitely Yes.

It is and I am. So right now I am sipping on a glass of cheap wine.

 

...I don't get the picture. Eating one hamburger would be gluttony according to this warped thinking.

 

"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 .
This was being mentioned as PUNISHEMENT for the Israelites not obeying God. God took away wine and beer...as punishment, not because it was sin!

 

could be if one does not need that hamburger.

 

No one "NEEDS" a hamburger. :rolleyes:

The bible says stealing is a SIN, bible says Lying is a SIN, bible says murder is a SIN, no where does the bible say drinking wine is a sin in fact it condones drinking it doesn't condone GETTING DRUNK! This is where you guys do not get it. Or you choose to ignore it.

 

Reminds me when I am standing line to order a meal or coffee and someone says "I need such and such" makes me gringe. No one NEEDS anything, we WANT not need. Unless of course the person in front of you is homeless. LOL

 

Keep telling yerself that, Frenchy, ol' boy. One day, you may convince yerself cuz ya ain't convinced any of us who take the Bible seriously.

 

The Bible says a lot about sin. It uses some very vivid imagery as well:

Revelation 16:19 And the great city was divided into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell: and great Babylon came in remembrance before God, to give unto her the cup of the wine of the fierceness of his wrath.

 

SFIC, I would just love to have you over for a wonderful dinner. And after the meal and your kind comments on how well the meal tasted, inform you there was a cup of wine poured into the sauce. Guess you would be on your way to becomming an alcoholic or to hell, which is it?

And don't try and say the alcohol is all cooked out. There are many recipes that don't have to be cooked at a high enough temp. I am sure just the mere thought of alcohol in a meal revolts you. I take it you don't take any cough medicine or mouthwash either.

 

I know we are not to question a person's salvation on the BB, but if one invited another over with the notion of deceiving them into partaking of that which they are forbidden to partake of, I would say that one doing the inviting is not saved.

That which is born of God will not go against God's Word, and that which is born of God will not deceive, for deceit is of the devil.

 

DHK,

Please forgive me. If that last post needs editing, go ahead.

 

DHK that Rev verse is to be taken symbolically not literally. Here is a complete understanding on how to study God's word accuratly, if you haven't read it already.[/qb][/quote]
sorry, I hit the edit button instead of the quote button.
DHK

[ April 02, 2006, 04:30 AM: Message edited by: DHK ]

 

SFIC I see you have yet to ignore another one of my questions. Which means I must have been right in my accessment

 

Frenchy,

The Bible tells me not to answer a fool according to his folly. So, I choose to be silent.

 

since the long post on Hermeneutics has nothing to do with the topic at hand, I also chose to just ignore it as well.

 

Yes it does it shows when you are suppose to take scripture literally and when you are suppose to take it figuratively. DHK misuse of Rev16:19 is evident according to proper hermenutics.

Everyone knows why you didn't answer my question.

 

I do not see where DHK misinterpreted that scripture.

You have a different view of the scripture so everyone who sees it different than you are wrong?