Talk:Alcohol in the Bible

Septuagint equivalent(s)
See section Septuagint equivalent(s) for yayin. A person who is an "oinopotes" in Prov 23:20 (Septuagint) is associated with the Hebrew term "sawbaw." Thus "Oinopotes" is a person, so is not really equivalent to a thing: "yayin". Likewise for sumposion, katoinousthai. I suggest the wording could be made clearer. Officelamp (talk) 12:08, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The Septuatint equivalent(s) for yayin previously stated: gleukos[14] (see below), katoinousthai ("to be drunken"),[15] oinopotes ("drunkard"),[16] oinos (see below), sumposion ("drinking party")[17][18] Officelamp (talk) 12:14, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Now oinopotes is on a new row. Officelamp (talk) 13:56, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Evaluation for GA
Overall the article is excellent. There are plenty of citations and sources. All the pictures are A-OK. Neutrality is not even a problem when all they are doing is making references to the Bible and other Christian related material concerning a subject that does not have a mass countermovement against it. As for the writing, it is interesting. The subject is "Alcohol in the Bible" so the reasonableness of the sources used is a no-brainer. With 138 citations and the other things I just mentioned, I find it highly likely that someones agrees and is therefore willing to pass it.◙◙◙  I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢  ◙◙◙ 03:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Kmarinas86. Are you waiting for someone else to give a second opinion? (If so, may I humbly propose that you note that on the candidates page.) --Fl e x (talk/contribs) 12:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * That person is me. No doubt about it, this one's ready for GA.◙◙◙  I M Kmarinas86  U O 2¢  ◙◙◙ 00:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Great! Many thanks! --Fl e x (talk/contribs) 01:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Isaih 65:8
Can the concept of "new wine" being alcoholic be reconciled with Isaih 65:8, which makes reference to new wine being from the cluster? I've noticed that many prohibitionist Christians use this verse to support the notion that the Bible also speaks of grape juice, yet I noticed it's not mentioned in this article, even though new wine is mentioned frequently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.226.206.191 (talk • contribs)


 * The purpose of this article is not to discuss every individual argument made by various interpreters but to present an overview of generally accepted knowledge concerning the Bible and alcohol. Nonetheless, I think the "Discussion" section and the table entry for "tirosh" sufficiently address this sort of argument and present the broad consensus. To answer your question, though, it is generally agreed that Hosea 4:11 and Acts 2:13 constitute proof of the intoxicating properties of at least some new wine. For more on how Christians have understood what the Bible says about alcohol through the ages, see Christianity and alcohol. --Fl e x (talk/contribs) 20:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, and thank you for your answer. However, my point wasn't to suggest that every argument of interpretation be discussed, but merely to question as to why "new wine" is so clearly alcoholic, as this article states with such certainty. I most definitely do not agree with prohibitionists that new wine is grape juice (especially given certain verses, which you cite), but was simply wondering as to how the page comes to the clear conclusion, without any question to the contrary, that new wine is potently alcoholic. Either way, thanks again for your answer!

Jesus drank wine?
Where does it say anywhere in the Bible that Jesus drank wine? On one occasion at a wedding he turned water into wine but that action doesn't necessarily encourage its consumption. During the last supper he never uses the word wine to describe his drink. Where do most people get the idea he drank wine and orders us to drink it?70.58.5.164 15:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * In answer to your first question -- Matthew 11:18f says, "For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, 'He has a demon!' The Son of Man [i.e., Jesus] came eating and drinking, and they say, 'Behold, a gluttonous man and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!' Yet wisdom is vindicated by her deeds." The plain implication of the passage is that Jesus, unlike John, drank wine, a common beverage in the day.


 * Regarding the wedding at Cana (John 2:1-11; cf. 4:46), it is even more plain that Jesus intended for the wine he transmuted to be consumed, and indeed the steward of the feast did just that.


 * Regarding your second question, it relates to the rite instituted at the Last Supper, which took place during passover. According to the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament: "Wine is specifically mentioned as an integral part of the passover meal no earlier than Jub. 49:6 ['... all Israel was eating the flesh of the paschal lamb, and drinking the wine ...'], but there can be no doubt that it was in use long before.... In the accounts of the Last Supper the term [wine] occurs neither in the Synoptists nor Paul. It is obvious, however, that according to custom Jesus was proffering wine in the cup over which He pronounced the blessing; this may be seen especially from the solemn [fruit of the vine] (Mark 14:25 and par.) which was borrowed from Judaism." Comepare "fruit of the vine" as a formula in the Mishnah, Tractate Berakoth 6.1. Calvin likewise comments that "the words related by Matthew — I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine — plainly show that what he delivered to the disciples to drink was wine." The point Calvin is making in context is to oppose the Roman Catholic doctrine that the content of the cup was actually blood, but he states incidentally that "fruit of the vine" means it was wine in the cup -- a point on which there had been universal agreement for 1800 years and now only a few dissenters (see Christianity and alcohol).


 * IMO, the formula that is often used during communion/eucharist celebrations ("...do this...") does not require the exact elements Jesus used, but I think they should be used if possible since they have rich symbolic and historical significance. --Fl e x (talk/contribs) 16:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

RfC: Format for references
I need some suggestions on how to improve the references on this article. In the recent peer review of this article, User:Konstable (now retired) suggested I divide the references into notes and references along the lines of Islam or Demosthenes, both featured articles. Konstable's main reason for this suggestion is that some of the citations have quite a few different sources (e.g., "... abused,[8][9][10][11][12]" from the lead), so he said I should combine them into a single footnote for each cited item with multiple sources within each note.

I attempted to do this in my "private" version of this article, but I ran into some issues. First, I don't want to introduce manual footnoting unless I absolutely have to (compare the manual "letter" footnotes in Demosthenes) since they're a maintenance hassle. Second, I want to be able to use the ... style notes since I have several sources that I cite a number of times (e.g., "Wine" from Easton's Bible Dictionary). Looking at my "private" version, where should I go from here? --Fl e x (talk/contribs) 01:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Jewish view
Your article is more modern thinking than the ideas of the days you write about. As a teacher of the torah and bible for 30 years, I often review other's ideas on what is written. I learn something new everyday. What I've discovered over the past thirty years is that most people write based on the concepts they learned from their basic church's doctrines. If you really want to write a correct article about alcohol in the bible, you need to leave the Christian writings completely and delve into the midrash (legend) books. For instance, one word that is often used describing Jesus is Nitzer. This was translated that he was from Nazerene. The word is greek for Nazerite. When you use this concept of Jesus being a Nazerite and understand the actual laws surrounding a Nazerite, then re-read the New Testament, a whole new story comes out of it. Jesus is only accused of drinking alcohol but no one actually sees him drinking it. As for alcohol, the Midrash (legends) is that the process was taught to man by the fallen angels (referred to as the Sons of G-d in the Book of Genesis) to mankind (decendants of Cain) before the flood. If you look deep into the Torah, you will discover that wine and strong drink was actually sent into the tabernacle for the LORD to enjoy. How deep are you willing to go into the actual words of the Torah bible? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Glitteringsword (talk • contribs)


 * I believe that the article as written reflects the broad consensus of scholars and theologians and is sourced appropriately from Christian, Jewish, and other reliable sources. Certainly I am open to investigating specific claims to the contrary on any point, major or minor, however. If you can help supply additional Jewish perspective (appropriately sourced, of course), it would be appreciated (n.b., this article is on alcohol in the Bible proper, not the Midrash, though certainly it and the Talmud could provide some valuable input on the matter; the Mishnah is already referenced in this regard, as are non-canonical works such as the Psalms of Solomon and Jubilees). --Fl e x (talk/contribs) 00:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Christian bias
The article is clearly written from a Christian perspective, which either has to be removed or made clear that his article is only about the Christian POV. Example of the this bias are Frankly I think it would be easier to rename this article "Alcohol in the Christian Bible" then to remove all of the bias and insert a Jewish view. Jon513 (talk) 12:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Use of the term "Old Testament"
 * making no distinction between the Hebrew bible and the Christian bible. The word "bible" is use many times to refer to both
 * Multiple use of Christian sources yet not a single source from a classic Jewish POV (though sometimes a Jewish view is mentioned in a scholarly source).
 * Many references to Christian views ("All Christians agree that...", "Some Christians assert..", "Some Christians argue...", "according to Christianity...", "Christians are instructed...", "...often understood by Christians...", "...but Christians differ over...") but only one reference to Jewish view ("...that have had significant influence among Jews and Christians alike...") which, by the way, is false (apocryphal books have almost no influence of Jewish thought - it says as much in the source cited).


 * Thanks for your comments. This article did spin off from Christianity and alcohol, so some weight in that direction might be expected and help in adjusting it is appreciated. That being said, aside from some verbiage (e.g., "Hebrew Bible" vs. "Old Testament", which, like AD/CE, is often used in secular, scholarly literature -- note that even one of the cited articles from the Jewish Encyclopedia uses the term "Old Testament" to refer to the Hebrew Bible), I don't see that this article exhibits such an overwhelming or even incorrigible bias as you seem to be suggesting. Here's why:


 * Judaism shares the common view that wine in the Bible (both Hebrew/OT and NT) is alcoholic. There is a small minority of Christians who dispute this, but other than that, AFAICT, there is no dispute on the content of any point of this article (though perhaps minor points could be adjusted here and there). Thus, we could easily add views from Jewish sources and replace "Christians" with "Commentators" where applicable.
 * All mention of Christianity (or Judaism) should not be struck. In some cases, parts are only applicable to Christians, e.g. "Christians are instructed..." refers to a New Testament passage, which doesn't have canonical status with and thus doesn't apply to non-Messianic Jews. In other places, only that small minority of Christians (i.e., no Jewish or secularist scholars) disagrees with the prevailing view, and they can be mentioned explicitly. If there are some views specific to Judaism, they can be added and attributed likewise.
 * There are multiple references that reflect Jewish views: Magen Broshi is a Jewish scholar writing in the Israel Museum Journal, and citations to two articles in the Jewish Encyclopedia appear. (BTW, you'll note the source for the claim you dispute regarding the influence of apocryphal books like Sirach is the Jewish Encyclopedia, which has a section on Sirach's popularity among the Jews and another on its popularity among Christians. The former doesn't seem to square with your own view.)


 * Perhaps the real issue in your mind as far as incorrigibility goes is that the article mixes HB/OT and NT passages in its summary of Biblical references to alcohol. I don't see this as a flaw because this practice is common among secular reliable sources (e.g., Illustrated Dictionary of Bible Life & Times and the Oxford Companion to the Bible) and because to separate them out into sections on the HB/OT references would create considerable duplication and break the flow. Compare the guidelines on CE/AD at WP:MOS.


 * In short, I think the article can be modified to conform to the neutrality policy on this point with a relatively small effort.


 * PS, What do you think of doing a parallel article to Christianity and alcohol (and Islam and alcohol, for that matter) called Judaism and alcohol or similar? --Fl e x (talk/contribs) 16:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * How do you feel about separating Hebrew Bible, Christain Bible, and Apocryphal references? I think it could go a long way in improving the article.  Jon513 (talk) 20:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * As I said, I think this would break the flow unnecessarily. I think we can make it neutral without resorting to this. Let me take a whack at it. --Fl e x (talk/contribs) 21:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The paragraphs are already written in order of the bible (starting with the hebrew, then dealing with the christian). All I am saying is that this division should be made clear.  Also I think it would add much to the article if there were two reference columns (one for the Hebrew bible, another for the Christain bible) in the charts in the Lexigraphy section.  Jon513 (talk) 12:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I've made a first cut at it. I don't like the idea of splitting each topical section into a HB/OT, Apoc/Deut-con, and NT subsections because it will separate topics that are related. Instead, I propose that we tweak the wording (as I have already tried to do, though I may have missed some things) so that all the "biblical literature" is dealt with in one topic neutrally and in an academic, scholarly way. (BTW, I'm still working on the Septuagint column in the Lexigraphy's Greek subsection which will show further connections between all the biblical literature since it's the HB in Greek, it contained the deut-con books, and it's what the NT quotes most often.) --Fl e x (talk/contribs) 21:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Since I've made a good faith attempt at addressing this valid concern and haven't received any negative feedback, I'll remove the notice until further specific concerns are raised. --Fl e x (talk/contribs) 02:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Jesus Never Drank Alcohol
Some people are so in love with alcoholic and intoxicating beverages that they refuse to see that it's a sin in any way. There are many who justify the consumption of alcoholic beverages by falsely saying that Jesus drank it. They point to Jesus turning water into wine at Cana, the good Samaritan using wine in the parable, the Pharisee's accusation towards Jesus, and the Last Supper.

The word "wine" in olden times was used indiscriminately to mean either fresh grape juice or fermented (alcoholic) grape juice. The context in which the word is used tells the reader which meaning is appropriate. If it speaks bad about it, it is referring to alcoholic wine. If it speaks good about it, it is referring to unfermented grape juice. Don't believe me? Look in any English dictionary over 200 years old and you'll see the word wine meant any grape juice.

In the Old Testament there are 3 Hebrew words that are all translated as “wine”. Yayin which is intoxicating, fermented wine, tirosh which is fresh grape juice, and shakar which is an intoxicating, intensely alcoholic, strong drink (often referring to other intoxicants than wine). The Greek words in the New Testament that are translated as "wine" are oinos and gleukos which can refer to either unfermented grape juice or alcoholic wine.

Many have said grape juice was fermented to preserve it. There were many methods back then besides fermentation to preserve grape juice and even when it was fermented the alcohol content was MUCH less than the wines of today. 67.42.243.40 16:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Your views do accurately represent prohibitionism, but they do not represent the accepted knowledge of the vast majority of students of the Bible. As such, your view is covered briefly in this article, but the majority of the text represents the much more broadly held view. Moreover, you must be more civil and assume good faith rather than assuming others are merely oenophilic bigots. Yes, we all have biases, but we also strive to keep them in check (as must you). --Fl e x (talk/contribs) 16:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * "If it speaks bad about it, it is referring to alcoholic wine. If it speaks good about it, it is referring to unfermented grape juice." - Wow, how convenient for your own point of view! How can you possibly take yourself seriously? This barely qualifies as an argument. Do you seriously wonder why this view of yours is so unpopular? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.164.132.33 (talk) 20:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * As someone who is quite interested in the history of wine (the beverage also known as fermented grape juice) could you please tell me which methods available in antiquity would allow grape juice to be kept fresh for any length of time, especially in the sun-drenched Middle East? My understanding is that without access to sterile filtration, sulfites and refrigeration, it would be easier to keep whole grapes ("table grapes") fresh than grape juice. (So if you wanted unfermented grape juice, you had better crush the grapes just before the meal.) The reason why fermentation starts immediately after grapes are crushed is that wild yeasts able to ferment the glucose and fructose of grape juice populate the waxy skin of grapes. Break the grapes, and the outside yeasts and the inside juice/sugar come into contact! The addition of industrial yeast in winemaking is a rather recent phenomenon, and many winemakers still prefer to use the naturally occuring yeasts. Tomas e (talk) 20:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It is often suggested by prohibitionists that grape juice was boiled down to a syrupy, jam-like concentrate that did not ferment, was storable, and could be remixed with water like we do with concentrate drinks today (see e.g., ). BTW, this is not a discussion forum. --Fl e x (talk/contribs) 20:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree about the discussion part, but sometimes it's difficult to resist clarifying a few facts when content of an article is protested on its discussion page. Grape juice has to be very concentrated not to ferment at all (such as the very rare Eszencia from Tokaj-Hegyalja which is exceptionally difficult to produce). Many ancient wines were made from sun-dried grapes and diluted before drinking, no doubt about it, but they fermented to a high enough alcohol level to be characterised as "fiery" before being diluted. Modern-day simple sweet sherry is made by fermenting Pedro Ximénez must that has been artifically concentrated, and they are also alcoholic. So while a mixture such as the one you describe will be weaker, it is not likely to be nonalcoholic. Tomas e (talk) 22:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Fitzsimmonds references
There are a couple of footnotes referencing a work by Fitzsimmonds, but a full citation isn't provided anywhere. --macrakis (talk) 16:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing that out. It must have been accidentally deleted, but I restored it now. --Fl e x (talk/contribs) 14:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Currently the article has a Fitzsimmonds reference for tirosh. Is this place ideal? Which word does Fitzsimmonds think is "particularly potent"? Tirosh in Micah 6:15 cannot be "potent" at all. Is his comment about "new wine" saying more about his view of the Greek word gleukos in Acts 2:13 and less about the Hebrew word tirosh in the Old Testament ("grapes" Micah 6:15 ESV)? Does he make a consistent distinction between various Hebrew and Greek words? (After mentioning Acts 2:13 again, Fitzsimmonds says gleukos "means literally ‘sweet wine’; the vintage of the current year had not yet come, but there were means of keeping wine sweet all year round." Fitzsimmonds does note what others often say of tirosh: "tiros, sometimes translated 'new' or 'sweet wine', has often been regarded as unfermented and therefore unintoxicating wine...") Officelamp (talk) 13:32, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Wine in the Bible
There is no word "Alcohol" in the Bible. Article should be called "Wine in the Bible". --Вишера Олег (talk) 08:06, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * It is true that the word "alcohol" does not appear in the Bible, but the article talks about more than just wine. Alcoholic beverages are summarized in the Bible itself as "wine and strong drink", and that is how some reference works list it (see footnotes). Others do, however, put it under "Alcohol" (e.g., The Evangelical Dictionary of Theology), and consider also the books by teetotaler Stephen Reynolds The Biblical Approach to Alcohol and Alcohol and the Bible. Surely, therefore, the current title is acceptable, and for that matter, Wine in the Bible already redirects here. --Fl e x (talk/contribs) 18:54, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Alcohol in the Bible
Cyberbot II has detected links on Alcohol in the Bible which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:


 * http://www.bible-history.com/isbe/D/DRUNKENNESS/
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist
 * http://www.bible-history.com/isbe/V/VINEGAR/
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 09:59, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

New book "The Spirituality of Wine"
Somebody should examine this book and reference it in the article as appropriate:

Kreglinger, Gisela H. 2016. The Spirituality of Wine. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:11, 11 November 2018 (UTC) --82.169.115.181 (talk) 12:21, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Wine and Strong Drink.pdf

Obsolete etymology of the word 'alcohol' and non-neutral wording
The etymology of the word 'alcohol' given in the second and third paragraphs in the introduction is obsolete. This etymology can be found on http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/alcohol under 'Various old etymological notes'.

Besides, the author of these two paragraphs seems to have a strong aversion to drinking alcoholic beverages, which shines through the words and examples he/she uses. This clearly violates neutrality. --82.169.115.181 (talk) 10:07, 15 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I think the original sources are sufficiently reliable, so removing the properly sourced content is inappropriate. - DVdm (talk) 09:19, 15 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Which original sources? The author uses GoogleTranslate. If you translate 'alcohol' to Arabic using GT, as the author does, you'll get the word 'al-kohl', the same word wiktionary mentions as the correct etymology. The author uses the obsolete etymology 'ghoul' to bolster his aversion to drinking alcohol in the third paragraph. It is based on the wrong etymology and far from neutral in its wording. --82.169.115.181 (talk) 10:07, 15 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Sources added show that Ghawl is not obsolete, being used both in 3rd party published works and in everyday use in the Arabic language. Copying the sources into a google search shows they are traceable to confirm this root word for alcohol. Showing the root word and the meaning of Demon helps explain why many Christians abstain from alcohol, as the Bible mentions Jesus drove out demons. Arabic is also a Semitic language, it is of the same branch as Aramaic (which Jesus spoke) and Hebrew.Statescontributor (talk) 14:01, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * But this article is about what is in the Bible, as discussed in WP:Reliable sources. Not a place for WP: Original research about what Americans read into the Bible based on word association. – Fayenatic  L ondon 21:12, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * None of these sources are relevant or acceptable. For instance, it doesn't matter that Arabic is a Semitic language- you're trying to seize upon an etymology of the Arabic word 'alcohol', which connects it with demons, but even if this etymology were true (and none of your sources serve as evidence for this in any way), this is still irrelevant, as the same connection is not present in Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek terms for alcoholic drinks, such as those presented in this article. If Jesus ever made the connection between demons and alcohol, Arabic is simply not a relevant source for this. All of my objections to these paragraphs may be found here. As it stands, your edits have clearly been motivated by a distaste for alcohol. Either this, or you simply have no clue how evidence works. I'm not going to waste any more of my time on you, I'll only say this- if anyone wants to be sure that the paragraphs in question ought to be deleted, just take a look at the edits starting from here. I also recommend that bad actors, such as Statescontributor, be prevented from continually vandalizing this page. - Hil44 (talk) 21:23, 16 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Fayenatic thank you for your feedback, with respect, if this article was just about what "is in" the Bible, then it wouldn't have the word "alcohol" in the title, as that word is not in the Hebrew Bible, yet that word is in the title, because the article is about "alcohol in the bible". As "alcohol" is not a word found in the Bible though, the whole of the article attempts to define places where it could be present in the Bible by association.  The whole of the article spends time pointing out where alcohol is thought to be, by utilizing terms like drunkenness, or demons, or stumbling blocks, or toxins of different sorts, through the association of drinks that are known today to sometimes contain alcohol or where the "character" of alcohol might be present in a Bible passage.  This is how the article as a whole approaches the topic, as it is the only way.  Due to that, providing an understanding of the word alcohol so that it can be recognized when found in the Bible becomes pertinent for connecting to places in the Bible that associate with the meaning of the word as presented.  Whether or not it is the only way of defining it in the Bible is not what I have any argument with and you'll note I have made no attempt to remove any content from the article related to any views expressed there, I have only provided the sources (all reliable by Wikipedia standards, and not original) that clearly show and define this root word and meaning of the word alcohol so that it can be understood in that context when that association is found in the Bible.  As Wikipedia's purpose is to be as comprehensive as possible, I continue to view that this evidence should be presented here and not ignored, as there is an association with it in the context of the root word and Biblical passages as presented, and neither it or any other association should be eliminated with the many other associations the rest of the article explores. Thank you, Statescontributor (talk) 22:22, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * All you're showing me is that you have not understood how Wikipedia is written. It's not a forum. It's second hand, based on WP:RS. Not just based on facts in RS, but summarising arguments that are presented in RS. Do try to get your head round WP:No original research. Unless you can show that the Pope, or the Methodist Conference, (etc.) make a connection between the etymology of the word alcohol and biblical exegesis, then your views do not belong in this article. – Fayenatic  L ondon 23:46, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

To that point, with respect, both reliable and published sources have been added at every point when requested in these paragraphs where the points made require it, and these sources are not original per Wikipedia guidelines. Reliable published citations are listed. To add to that, per your request, I've added an additional citation regarding context between alcohol and use in argument through the Bible with the verse connecting it to the "cup of demons" for which the association with the root word of alcohol suggests a correlation. The citation verbiage specifically contains this argument (among other association) - "If when you set up for yourselves, think yourselves happy in getting clear from the restraints of a sober regimen, and take the liberty of the drunkards, what reproach it will be to you! What a degeneracy!  What a fall from your first love!  And where will it stop?  Perhaps you have given up the name of your Lord Jesus at his table; and dare you partake of the cup of the Lord and the cup of Devils?" - The Wesleyan Methodist Magazine Vol. 36, 1813. Pgs. 93-94. Thank you, Statescontributor (talk) 00:56, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * No, you have not provided what the other editors consider reliable sources, and most of what you have written is therefore original research. Furthermore, you still have not shown that the Arabic word underlying the English word alcohol has anything to do with the Bible's view of alcohol. The fact that at least three editors disagree with your approach and no one has supported it means that you need to come up with better sources and reasoning. I have reverted your additions and urge you to actually discuss your changes here rather than baldly asserting that you have provided reliable sources and are not engaging in original research.
 * Also, I note that you have reverted the removal of your material three times today. Please be aware of Wikipedia's three-revert rule and do not immediately undo the deletion. Indyguy (talk) 02:55, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I would appreciate a response from Fayenatic, as my last update was not the same as past reverts as this time a question was actually asked that hadn't been answered, rather than having the content removed without any question that had already been answered or without question asked, which is what happened when the past reverts were made. The new question, whether there is any correlation in the Christian tradition that can be cited which ties the use of alcohol to demons as the etymology given also mentions that correlation, and with that is there a tie of alcohol use in Christian tradition with the verse in the Bible mentioning "the cup of demons"?   Given this question the content has been updated to include the requested citation that specifically associates the use of alcohol to the partaking of the cup of demons from the Bible verse that was provided.  Fayenatic, out of respect, as you mention in your talk page that you also try for a neutral and objective view on edits, even going so far as to correct your edits or restoring content if necessary, given that, I would love to hear your feedback and thoughts given this most recent citation that you had requested, that you mentioned would tie the content association stated between the word alcohol and its meaning as shown in the two paragraphs that were reverted.  Thank you, Statescontributor (talk) 04:08, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * To be clear, the only difference between the first edit you made on 16 November and the most recent two is the addition of the citation for The Wesleyan Methodist Magazine, which was presumably in connection with the 1 Corinthians 10:21 verse. Since it was published in 1813, it really can't be used to support the contention that alcohol is derived from ghawl (assuming that is what that source even contends). Other than the addition of that citation, you still haven't addressed the inadequacy of your other sources. Indyguy (talk) 04:33, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * But the comment on the other sources was answered, a reply was given that the sources had been vetted and was in fact the first question in this etymology talk thread, where a reply was given by a senior Wikipedia editor that they are reliable sources and removing them would be inappropriate Indyguy. Please see the first question and it's answer in this thread, please also let Fayenatic respond to the new citation request that was provided. Statescontributor (talk) 04:45, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * you are not listening. From Special:Contributions/Statescontributor it is clear that you are not here to build the encyclopedia. Please desist, unless you really want to be blocked. – Fayenatic  L ondon 10:33, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Fayenatic, I defended the removal of two paragraphs that had been there for two years, and that DVdm had properly vetted at the top of this Etymology thread, mentioning their reliable sources and that it would be inappropriate to remove them. I then listened to your request for a new citation being needed for the connection to be made, and I added it, and in asking for a reply to that you have not given one, and have not reverted your removal of the two paragraphs, you've only referenced my defense of the material from someone else who wouldn't read the sources or respond to their content but remained holding to their view.  DVdm or anyone else, I ask you to please review what has gone on and if you agree that if these paragraphs and sources have been removed inappropriately, to please revert them.Statescontributor (talk) 14:12, 17 November 2021 (UTC)