Are we to celebrate birthdays?

[Kentucky]

Nowhere do the Greeks words translated as "sober" mean to be without wine, or any strong drink. In fact, the original Webster's dictionary meaning of Sober means to be temperate, and not to be free, of alcohol.

That's what I found in Strong's:
#G3525
νήφω nḗphō, nay'-fo; of uncertain affinity; to abstain from wine (keep sober), i.e. (figuratively) be discreet:—be sober, watch.

Mark

[Kentucky]

The numbers of years are precise, and not rounded. Guess they were keeping track of when they were born.

Just thinking out loud.... LOL

And when they died, perhaps for the benefit of future historians. Just thinking out loud also.

Mark

[wmfinck]

Nowhere do the Greeks words translated as "sober" mean to be without wine, or any strong drink. In fact, the original Webster's dictionary meaning of Sober means to be temperate, and not to be free, of alcohol.

That's what I found in Strong's:
#G3525
νήφω nḗphō, nay'-fo; of uncertain affinity; to abstain from wine (keep sober), i.e. (figuratively) be discreet:—be sober, watch.

Mark

LOL, you are right, sorry! I forgot about that one...

The more common word is sophroneo, which means to be of sound mind, and is also translated as sober. A lot of non-drinking people can be out of their wits and do things which are not fitting.

But the same Paul of Tarsus who used the word napho had told Timothy to drink a little wine, so I have generally accepted the three times that he used napho to be colloquial, and not literal, as the word was commonly used like sophroneo. There are three other times napho is used in Scripture, all of them in the epistles of Peter.

[Gaius]

A lot of non-drinking people can be out of their wits and do things which are not fitting.

This is of course true, Bill, just as it is true that some of us may be able to "drink moderately" if we wanted to do so. It is also true that people under the influence of alcohol do things not fitting on a far bigger scale than those without alcohol taken.

Alcohol continues to cause massive social damage to our people.
This is not in dispute by any authoritative statistical source.
Even the booze industry is now compelled to advertise the danger of its products.

It is "social drinkers" who appear the most trenchant defenders of alcohol.
How appropriate can this be, given the known huge damage to our people ?

Some Scriptures --

http://www.acts17-11.com/dialogs_drunkenness.html

[wmfinck]

A lot of non-drinking people can be out of their wits and do things which are not fitting.

This is of course true, Bill, just as it is true that some of us may be able to "drink moderately" if we wanted to do so. It is also true that people under the influence of alcohol do things not fitting on a far bigger scale than those without alcohol taken.

Alcohol continues to cause massive social damage to our people.
This is not in dispute by any authoritative statistical source.
Even the booze industry is now compelled to advertise the danger of its products.

It is "social drinkers" who appear the most trenchant defenders of alcohol.
How appropriate can this be, given the known huge damage to our people ?

Some Scriptures --

http://www.acts17-11.com/dialogs_drunkenness.html

But Patrick, just as many Scriptures depict good men, and even Christ Himself, drinking wine.

If nêpho means not to drink wine, as Mark pointed out, then oinos is indeed wine, because nêpho does not mean not to drink grape juice. Even Mark, I think, would have to acknowledge that. As I pointed out elsewhere, there is another Greek word for grape juice.

I was looking at the word nêpho yesterday, as Mark reminded me of its original meaning. Oddly, in the new Strong's lexicon which comes with the BibleWorks software that I often use, the concept of wine, or any alcohol, is completely missing from their definition of nêpho! So maybe drunkards made that lexicon, but I still could have remembered the word.

Considering the etymology of the term, the only reason I can conclude that the Greeks had this word, nêpho, is because the word nêpios refers to an infant, and of course the Greeks knew that one should not give wine to a child.

Yahweh, of course, understood all of the dangers of wine. But His law did not forbid it, and He even expected sacrifices of wine from men, so they were expected to be in possession of it.

If we did not have dangers, obligations, and risks, we would never learn to have personal responsibility, and we would always be infants.

There are a lot of Whites living in poverty in this mostly rural area, just as there were in the area of rural upstate New York where I lived for three years, and in Bristol Tennessee. But they always seem to have money for beer, liquor, and in many cases, much worse things like heroin and crystal meth.

It saddens me to see people with no other purpose than to be drunken. They are the people being addressed by many of those scriptures you have linked to. They have no other purpose, they are not looking for one, they have no shepherds and would hate anyone who even tried to get them to change. When they "do things not fitting", it is a punishment from God, because they neglected Him, and no amount of prohibition is ever going to stop that.

[matthewott]

There definitely seems to be a pervading theme lately in most topics here on the forum...ruling over your brother's faith. Indeed, we are to keep each other on our toes, consistently reminding each other to walk the straight and narrow, using scripture to tender the admonitions. To me, scripture is the ultimate source of "common sense". While it absolutely does not cover every aspect of our human condition, it is the framework for building the wisdom of God, which is why He put us here...to become perfected in His wisdom in order to be a viable servant in the administration of His Kingdom. He is looking for us to be discerning, judicious, and merciful in the enforcement of His Laws. No offense my brothers, but what is tantamount to bickering over semantics seems to be absorbing a lot of time here. Topics such as alcohol, rock music, birthday celebrations, tattoos, guns, etc. have all been answered the same way time and again. If it is not strictly forbidden, you use your own personal christian discernment to determine your own course of righteousness. We are all expected to walk the straight and narrow path, but no where in Scripture (that I am aware of, anyway) does it say that the exact same path exists from our door to God, and the only footsteps that we are to follow in are Christ's. I guarantee you the walkway from the door of my house looks nothing like yours. Christ drank alcohol and Christ advocated purchasing weapons, for example, but we can still argue for hours the "merits" of alcohol and guns. Both EASILY have the propensity to destroy lives...but they both exist, and both were obviously deemed acceptable in the eyes of Christ. What happened to the plain and simple scriptural understanding of "everything in moderation"? Moderation implies personal discernment. One person's moderation may be flat abstinence, while another may base it on quantification (I'm only going to buy a 6 pack, not a case...). I do not celebrate Christmas...like I used to. Knowing it has pagan roots prompted me to "moderate" my position and how I approach it. Do I believe the concept of Christmas is wrong? Absolutely! Do I condemn my misguided brethren for celebrating it? No...but with the wisdom of God, I am able to use that day to help bring the Truth to the table of those who may not hear it otherwise. In the recently infamous "rock music" thread, I used a familiar term twice, which I believe sums up how I see a lot of these topics being addressed...DON'T THROW THE BABY OUT WITH THE BATHWATER. That is one of the most common sense phrases I think I was ever taught. While we CI'ers are probably the most literal adherents to the Word, we also know that the Word has much figurative meaning too...which Bill in particular consistently addresses in his commentaries, and in his translations. So much in Scripture IS cut and dry...and we are expected to take those literally. Prime example: Thou shalt not murder. However, murder can come in many forms and can be perpetrated in many different ways. Two ways can involve alcohol and guns. Does that now mean that, if alcohol and guns can be linked to murder, that these "tools" are now evil and by using them we are in danger of committing murder? Of course not! By stating such things as "alcohol should be forbidden" or "all guns must be destroyed" (not that anyone here has, though I suggest there have been such borderline sentiments) not only are we being completely unrealistic, but are ruling over your brother's choice to grasp onto a tool, albeit a dangerous tool, that Christ believed we should have access to.

So in conclusion, I think what we all need to realize is that while we cannot totally discern from scripture the merits of things such as alcohol, tobacco, pagan holidays, etc., we should all be in total agreement that these things are placed here FOR US TO EXERCISE THE LEARNED WISDOM OF GOD, and prove that such tools in the hands of HONORABLE MEN, will produce GOOD FRUIT.

[mchawe]

That photo was taken on my 70th birthday. One of the best times ever!

[matthewott]

Just to clarify my last statement here, while it is obviously a sort of response to this thread (sort of, lol), the comment is more of a blanket statement to which I absolutely want to be schooled if I am scripturally incorrect. I think many of you know that my discernment comes more from the common sense of scripture, rather than an extensive and intimate knowledge of verses.

P.S. Mchawe...your picture did not come out on your avatar...I would love to see it!

[Nayto]

There definitely seems to be a pervading theme lately in most topics here on the forum...ruling over your brother's faith.

I've been thinking as well that there seems to be a theme lately. I honestly wouldn't call it ruling your brother's faith though. It's difficult to discern the tone of posts for me, but judging by others' reactions there seems to be some offense taken.

It's all very well to use one's own discretion when navigating the more grey areas of scripture, but in my opinion we shouldn't be offended when a brother offer's their opinion on something in our lives. If I see something wrong with a brother's life then my conscience weighs heavily on me to tell him, whether it is a grey area or not. I do not say this because I want to rule my brother or out of arrogance, but rather because I care deeply. I would sincerely hope that my brother is not offended, and even if it is a grey area and he disagrees, I would want him to understand that me having gotten it off my chest means that the matter is resolved for me. I'm also happy to discuss the matter and admit I'm wrong or agree to disagree. Vice versa I would hope that my brother would take care enough to point out the problems in my life. When people start to get defensive and offended, then we are less likely to help one another.

Obviously it can come to a point where one tries to micromanage another's life, but I don't think it's ever come to that before. There are probably busy bodies who have such inclinations, but if I may be so bold, I don't think many are found in the male side of our race. We all have each others' best interests at heart and we should take one another's advice as such.

[matthewott]

It's all very well to use one's own discretion when navigating the more grey areas of scripture, but in my opinion we shouldn't be offended when a brother offer's their opinion on something in our lives. If I see something wrong with a brother's life then my conscience weighs heavily on me to tell him, whether it is a grey area or not. I do not say this because I want to rule my brother or out of arrogance, but rather because I care deeply. I would sincerely hope that my brother is not offended, and even if it is a grey area and he disagrees, I would want him to understand that me having gotten it off my chest means that the matter is resolved for me. I'm also happy to discuss the matter and admit I'm wrong or agree to disagree. Vice versa I would hope that my brother would take care enough to point out the problems in my life. When people start to get defensive and offended, then we are less likely to help one another.

Obviously it can come to a point where one tries to micromanage another's life, but I don't think it's ever come to that before. There are probably busy bodies who have such inclinations, but if I may be so bold, I don't think many are found in the male side of our race. We all have each others' best interests at heart and we should take one another's advice as such.

I completely agree. Maybe my inclination toward "ruling over your brother" seems a slightly harsh way to term the tone, but that is the direction of the "lean" that many of us are choosing to take in our apparent battle of opinions no matter how scholarly our approach. I am even guilty. What I think I am really trying to say is that maybe we should dial down the emotion so we can be more objective here, thusly more humble towards each other. Time for me to get off my high horse, and stop beating the dead one too...