Help refuting this idea

[callmealejandro]

I was having a discussion with two of my friends and one of them said that the bible promotes the use of alcohol. I countered that with Ephesians 5:18 (…Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery…). The other friend then asked if it is okay to kill adulterers and fortunetellers because it says to in the bible…

What can my response be? Why does the bible tell us to do these things?

 

[MarcoPolo]

Which verses command us to kill adulterers and fortune tellers?

 

[willofgods]

Many laws found in the Old Testament were given to protect the tribes of Israel from being either destroyed, or assimilated (i.e., converting to a religion of false gods). In any case, Jesus Himself gives the best argument I can think of.
[BIBLEDRB]John 8:7[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[Marocchino]

The moderate consumption of alcohol is fine and and permitted by God in Sacred Scripture. Christ’s first public miracle was transforming water into wine! Drunkenness, which is the immoderate consumption of alcohol, is condemned.

Similarly, the consumption of food is permitted but immoderate consumption of food, or gluttony, is condemned.

 

[Nelka]

The moderate consumption of alcohol is fine and and permitted by God in Sacred Scripture. Christ’s first public miracle was transforming water into wine! Drunkenness, which is the immoderate consumption of alcohol, is condemned.

Similarly, the consumption of food is permitted but immoderate consumption of food, or gluttony, is condemned.

 

[fhansen]

I was having a discussion with two of my friends and one of them said that the bible promotes the use of alcohol. I countered that with Ephesians 5:18 (…Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery…). The other friend then asked if it is okay to kill adulterers and fortunetellers because it says to in the bible…

What can my response be? Why does the bible tell us to do these things?

The Catechism defines the Law as the Ten Commandments. These are based on love of God and neighbor. Other directives in what’s come to be known as the “Mosaic Law” don’t apply to Christians.

 

[Mr_Smith]

The moderate consumption of alcohol is fine and and permitted by God in Sacred Scripture. Christ’s first public miracle was transforming water into wine! Drunkenness, which is the immoderate consumption of alcohol, is condemned.

Similarly, the consumption of food is permitted but immoderate consumption of food, or gluttony, is condemned.

That is also just common sense from a dietary point of view in terms of food and drinking.

 

[Incomplete]

I was having a discussion with two of my friends and one of them said that the bible promotes the use of alcohol. I countered that with Ephesians 5:18 (…Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery…). The other friend then asked if it is okay to kill adulterers and fortunetellers because it says to in the bible…

What can my response be? Why does the bible tell us to do these things?

If they contend that you can’t quote the Bible about not getting drunk because they think the Bible says it’s ok to kill adulterers and fortunetellers, then they also can’t quote the Bible to say it’s ok to get drunk (assuming that’s what you meant by “promoting” alcohol.)

As others have said, alcohol is fine. Drunkenness is not.

Answering Marco Polo’s question could help us answer your last question.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

… the bible promotes the use of alcohol. I countered that with Ephesians 5:18 (…Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery…). The other friend then asked if it is okay to kill adulterers…

Welcome!

The first thing to point out is that the bible does not say “kill” fortune tellers.
It says, “Suffer them not to live among YOU.” They are not to be allowed to take up residence in the promised land because of their practices. There are other ways to prevent them from living in Israel.

Depending on exactly what they do, which may include child sacrifice and other practices – even today some people fitting this description would go to prison for their practices; fraud, murder, and the like are not acceptable even if the death penalty is too harsh for such people; Eg: to harsh in a society capable of detaining them out of society until they die or change their ways (I’m not saying I know how to measure success in the corrections system…)

There is, perhaps, a sensitivity in the United states to these things, because many witches were burned in Salem, OR due to very fundamentalist interpretations of the scriptures (Non-catholic as I understand…) which took those words to mean kill them.

Not only this, but if one recalls Joan of Arc, her rigged trial by a bishop nominally of the Catholic Church in England – but clearly operating for political reasons that were not sanctioned by the authority of the Church in Rome; That people have always, whether within the Jewish religion or the Catholic, taken matters into their own hands in a mistaken or corrupt fashion.

Murder was never the first choice of action that God gave for any people; but upon his word being disobeyed, he then gave war as an option or sent floods to wipe them out. We can’t judge him based on this, for no one can second guess the future and what had become inevitable by this multiplication of sin. The simple fact of the matter is, that a people who disobey God – themselves – have devils in their ranks; and at that point, only God knows the future and what is or is not avoidable.

A great example, though, of the very distaste God has for those who go beyond necessity in war is that of King David. King David, after fighting many times to save his own life, and peoples lives, in a desperate conflict situation also began to use these wars to kill off people for his own reasons; eg: Uriah the Hitite, whom’s wife David wanted but had no right to take.

David set Uriah up to either be protected by God in war; but not defended by David – resulting in David tempting God. This David about whom God had said – here is a man after my own heart – and this David, after repenting of his sin-- would eventually want to build the temple of the Lord. But, this is how we find David and God’s relationship:

1Chro 21:30 And David could not go to the altar there to pray to God: for he was seized with an exceeding great fear, seeing the sword of the angel of the Lord.
,
1Chro 22:6 And he called for Solomon his son: and commanded him to build a house to the Lord the God of Israel.

And Solomon would say:
1King 5:3 Thou knowest how that David my father could not build an house unto the name of the LORD his God for the wars which were about him on every side, until the LORD put them under the soles of his feet.

(But David was not allowed to build it even after the wars.)

Solomon did a good job of not pointing the finger at his father’s sin directly; but the result of that would be repetitions of this sin by Israel for years to come – until such time as a prophet had to cry out for the scandal was clearly PUBLIC knowledge.

Isaia 1:15 And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you: yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear: your hands are full of blood.

And Saul, David’s predecessor did this to a people supposedly marked for annihilation by God:

2Samu 21:1 Then there was a famine in the days of David three years, year after year; and David enquired of the LORD. And the LORD answered, It is for Saul, and for his bloody house, because he slew the Gibeonites.
2Samu 21:2 And the king called the Gibeonites, and said unto them; (now the Gibeonites were not of the children of Israel, but of the remnant of the Amorites; and the children of Israel had sworn unto them: and Saul sought to slay them in his zeal to the children of Israel and Judah.)

This is something really important to ponder when thinking of all these things which went before and the violence of the old testament:

When Jesus dies on the cross, the tombs of many of the saints were opened and many appeared in Jerusalem; but even after 40 days and the purification which leads to the outpouring of the PROMISED Holy Spirit on Pentecost; David was not seen.

It isn’t obvious from the linguistics of scripture why God commanded things, but it is clear that he was not happy with how his commands were often interpreted.

As to wine:
1Timo 5:23 Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach’s sake and thine often infirmities.

Here in Oregon, a gentle man – Bishop Kenneth Steiner – has just retired.
I am told, that the stress of becoming bishop led him to need some wine for his stomach – but I know wisdom born of distress when I see it; And for some reason I do see it in him – A little wine helps, but more is not better; and sometimes wine isn’t the solution but a change of pastorship.

I also served a few times as an altar boy under archbishop Leveda; I think he needed a change that wasn’t as obvious as Steiners; and I can’t do more than read facial expressions around wine … but I don’t think all bishops are of the same kind as Timothy was and some are in more danger than others; even if not obvious.

Your friend sounds like they may be trying to justify their own misuse of wine; I hope this isn’t so – but watch for it.

 

[Marocchino]

That is also just common sense from a dietary point of view in terms of food and drinking.

That is because God is a God of reason.

 

[Incomplete]

That is because God is a God of reason.

Yes! How often have you realized that following God’s laws is because God truly knows what’s best for us?

 

[nishkalank]

That is also just common sense from a dietary point of view in terms of food and drinking.

I put it this way-- The scriptures do not encourage or promote or permit drinking . It has not banned it. But it has taught that immoderate use is bad and may lead to sins. Everything that is not banned can be used moderately. It applies for food, and all kinds of necessities, comforts and luxuries. Denial of such pleasures is a good thing for believers. Jesus did not have a place to lay his head. He was not owning land or buildings or Bank account. So we shall not worry over small denials or abstinences from all bad habits and pleasures.

Nishkalank

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Welcome!

. . . . . . . .

As to wine:
1Timo 5:23 Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach’s sake and thine often infirmities.

. . . . . . . .

It has to be noted that this is based on a poor translation which did not understand the context.

“little wine” does not mean small quantity, but rather small strength.
A mere couple of hundred years ago, doctors, here in England would have given the same advice, as drinking the water would lead to disabling stomach upsets, and even very commonly, death from diseases like typhoid.

Fermenting a sugary solution produces a liquor with some alcohol, but most importantly, the yeasts in the reaction, produce antibiotics, so killing the dangerous bacterea infesting the water.
Remember, penicillin is produced by yeast.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

It has to be noted that this is based on a poor translation which did not understand the context.

“little wine” does not mean small quantity, but rather small strength.

I like the general direction you are taking the apologetic, but it really doesn’t mean “small”, but “few”.

οινω ολιγω χρω",
to-wine few, use : use few wine

And of course, that’s too literal to be a good English sentence conveying the meaning… but the alternative “Use a choice wine” also misses the meaning, though it’s much closer…

Oligarchy is the rule of a few; Oligo, then, indicates a choice of a few wines capable of serving the purpose;

In the book of wisdom of Sirach; the LXX has the same general expression appears (verse numbering is different, though…)

Sirac 31:19 ως ικανον ανθρωπω πεπαιδευμενω το ολιγον και επι της κοιτης αυτου ουκ ασθμαινει
Sirac 31:22 How sufficient is a little wine for a man well taught, and in sleeping thou shalt not be uneasy with it, and thou shalt feel no pain.

It is clear, the translators of the DRB were consistent in translating oligo as “little”; but it isn’t necessarily a wine with little strength – rather, it is one of a few choices – and used in moderation. The passage in Sirach says, don’t be the first to reach for the servant; and the reason is clearly that it can still make one drunk and addicted.
(wine has destroyed many men – don’t contend with those who love wine.)
One has to be trained in the use of wine (well taught) to discern their kinds, uses, and dangers.

In the same passage, which is somewhat gross – it also talks about catharsis of the stomach should one have been forced to eat too much food. The implication is that one ought not drink more wine to balance it out – just loose the rotten stomach outside somewhere – and you’ll feel better.

So, there is certainly a wisdom required in what wine to drink with what food and how much.

A mere couple of hundred years ago, doctors, here in England would have given the same advice, as drinking the water would lead to disabling stomach upsets, and even very commonly, death from diseases like typhoid.

Fermenting a sugary solution produces a liquor with some alcohol, but most importantly, the yeasts in the reaction, produce antibiotics, so killing the dangerous bacterea infesting the water.
Remember, penicillin is produced by yeast.

Yes, a mold like yeast, grows on cantaloupe: Clearly St. Paul, in Timothy, is advocating the use of wine as a medicine. As to the strength of the wine – I am not sure that it means a weak wine, at all; but wisdom is required in avoiding drunken-ness and relaxation of judgment. A bishop who needs alcohol to “relax” in distasteful public settings needs training in how to use the mind – not in how to use the wine. Love and wisdom and patience are the remedy for anger and frustration, not alcohol.

In the Eucharistic meal, the priest adds a little water to the wine – but does not dilute it much or else the wine will not be acceptable at his table. Alcohol is very slow to kill bacteria found in water – so that a dilute wine is not a very safe choice either. A dilute wine (I expect) has to be prepared ahead of time and given a chance to kill the bacteria before use.

Also, I think it was English – where the gin had quinine, (or something spelled slightly differently) added to the ferment because it had medicinal properties too. So that fermented beverages have long been used to carry appropriate medicinal substances in the ferment which the alcohol preserves against degradation of potency. It is also true, that in today’s climate – other options are available.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Dear Huiou Theou,
I appreceate your reference to the Greek, but here we have a basic error.
What is forgotten, and I feel, deliberately in places, is that the Greek originals do not exist, and indeed, as complete documents, probably never existed.
What is taken as Greek, is a back translation from the Latin, and indeed, the Latin can be read as small, meaning weak.
We must also remember that in the similar conditions I raised, strong beers and wines were not commonly used, indeed, in reference to the nativity of John, wine was compared to a strong drink as something different, else it was tautology.
Like referring to beer and whiskey.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Dear Huiou Theou,
I appreceate your reference to the Greek, but here we have a basic error.
What is forgotten, and I feel, deliberately in places, is that the Greek originals do not exist, and indeed, as complete documents, probably never existed.

Hmmm…? There are copies of the LXX and NT greek from the 400’s that are contemporary with the time that the Vulgate was first translated into Latin. The later back-translation issues do not happen until T-R-Stephanus did a recension at a much later date of the Greek based on the Vulgate. Codex Sinaiticus predates the recension and is available online and it isn’t a back-translation of the Latin at all.

What is taken as Greek, is a back translation from the Latin, and indeed, the Latin can be read as small, meaning weak.

The Douay Rheems is a back translation of the Vulgate, yes; So when I said, that the DRB uniformly translates the Greek – my apologies for not being more clear; I am still not sure how say it concisely.

Rather, I will ask: what word in this sentence from the Vulgate means “little” or “weak”?

Sirac 31:22 Quam sufficiens est homini eruditio vinum exiguum !/ et in dormiendo non laborabis ab illo,/ et non senties dolorem./

We must also remember that in the similar conditions I raised, strong beers and wines were not commonly used, indeed, in reference to the nativity of John, wine was compared to a strong drink as something different, else it was tautology.
Like referring to beer and whiskey.

In the other passages you are speaking about – the discussion was not about medical use of wine for a sour stomach. That is specifically why I mentioned Sirach – for that passage does include a discussion about the use of wine around sour stomachs; and as a nightcap to aid in sleeping. If the choice of wine happens to be “weak”, or “dry”, that might be one of a select few wines in agreement with my translation of the Greek. HOWEVER a strong wine may also be one of a select few.

The point in these two parallel passages about the use of wine for the stomach – is that it requires erudition/knowledge of the problem at hand. Grabbing the first wine that comes, (or all of them!!!), is not a wise choice.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Do not confuse the Vulgate with Latin.
The Latin Gospels date from AD200, or a cople of years later.
Jerome used the OLD LATIN virtually unmodified.
The Old Latin was back translated into Greek and other tongues including Hebrew and Syriac, (Aramaic) almost immediately.
You need to predate AD 200 to claim original Greek, or even Aramaic.
Siniaticus fails this test, so is most probably also a back translation.

<Rather, I will ask: what word in this sentence from the Vulgate means “little” or “weak”? >
noli adhuc aquam bibere sed vino modico utere propter stomachum tuum et frequentes tuas infirmitates

modico, dative/ablative of modicus, moderate, small, mean.
adjective, coupled to vino, dative/ablative, wine,
not adverb couled to bibere, to drink.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Do not confuse the Vulgate with Latin.
The Latin Gospels date from AD200, or a cople of years later.
Jerome used the OLD LATIN virtually unmodified.

I know that old Latin translations were available before the time of Jerome. His translation effort was, I think, to dispel some errors that may have crept in for having a pluralistic set of translations.

I have never heard or seen anything to indicate that he did not re-translate from various Hebrew texts into Latin. From what writings of his that I have read – he is often speaking about variant Hebrew scriptures and trying to find the “original” meaning vs. corruptions that he thought had crept in due to their being no central authority in the Jews which were dispersed by the year 400. And occasionally, I see references to Augustine and him talking about apologetic points.

The Old Latin was back translated into Greek and other tongues including Hebrew and Syriac, (Aramaic) almost immediately.
You need to predate AD 200 to claim original Greek, or even Aramaic.
Siniaticus fails this test, so is most probably also a back translation.

Where do you get a reference for this? The churches were already in uproar over hypostasis vs. substance and pelagianism; I have no reason to believe that Sinaiticus came from a church which would respect back translations which were not specifically promulgated by the Pope at an earlier date. If they were promulgated, then it doesn’t seem necessary for Jerome to have attempted to purify the Latin variations against the Hebrew.

<Rather, I will ask: what word in this sentence from the Vulgate means “little” or “weak”? >
noli adhuc aquam bibere sed vino modico utere propter stomachum tuum et frequentes tuas infirmitates

modico, dative/ablative of modicus, moderate, small, mean.

OK, but you didn’t answer the question about the Latin in Sirac which is the one I asked about. The passage in the NT holds different meanings in the Greek and the Latin; but does the OT passage?

Sirac 31:22 Quam sufficiens est homini eruditio vinum exiguum !/ et in dormiendo non laborabis ab illo,/ et non senties dolorem./

The context of Sirac makes it clear that wine was indicated to help settle stomachs; and I infer that there is a limit on how much wine one ought to drink before getting rid of bad food / too much food by “prudent” upheaval instead of more wine.

I don’t see “modico” in the sentence; so I will have to say that the Latin translates the two passages differently than the consistency of the LXX Greek with the NT Greek which has “oligo” (few) in both places. The LXX OT reading has both meanings – moderation and few because of an extended explanation and Context.
Regardless of the Later Latin, I would expect Timothy – being a bishop – to have known the OT in Greek; esp. as Paul wrote in Greek as well.

adjective, coupled to vino, dative/ablative, wine,
not adverb couled to bibere, to drink.

But all that proves is that the Latin translation may be “little wine” as opposed to “drink little” – however, in practice, these two expressions can be the same.
If he drinks only a little wine – he dilutes it with his stomach/food even if he drinks it full strength. But it doesn’t have to be “weak” wine in either case.

Can you show anyplace in any Latin scripture that “modico” means “weak”.
It doesn’t need to be wine, but weak anything.

My view is that moderators are strong things (virtuous) – they even govern the threads here at CAF. Drink “moderated wine” in English, conveys both possibilities – that one uses a full strength wine, but in a way to prevent it’s strength from taking over Timothy’s sensibilities. The passage in the OT talks about both dimensions – the quality of wine, and the quantity. I find it odd that in Latin, you seem to be suggesting that the advice of scripture in the OT which Paul studied extensively would be different than the advice he gave to timothy, a bishop who is in the same public relations position as the figure in Sirac.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

I know that old Latin translations were available before the time of Jerome. His translation effort was, I think, to dispel some errors that may have crept in for having a pluralistic set of translations.

I have never heard or seen anything to indicate that he did not re-translate from various Hebrew texts into Latin. From what writings of his that I have read – he is often speaking about variant Hebrew scriptures and trying to find the “original” meaning vs. corruptions that he thought had crept in due to their being no central authority in the Jews which were dispersed by the year 400. And occasionally, I see references to Augustine and him talking about apologetic points.

The best Old Latin was the comission of Pope Victorious I, the first African Pope, from Carthage. His comission was to unify the church, and he had the use of the ‘University’ at Alexandria, otherwise known as the Great Library. After the havoc wrought by J Caesar, there was much rebuilding of stock, and that is how so many Christian documents found their way there. There is no official record of this, but the translations of the gospels, which may originally been a harmonised Gospel, was so good that it was circulated to all the churches, and back translated into the local dialects. This would have been the Gospel used some 200 years later by Victor of Capua, from which both Matthew and John can be reconstructed, virtually complete.
If such a document is what Jerome was working from, then that would explain the accusation of corruption, and also the exact duplication of passages, where a missing text in a reconstructed Gospel was conflated from a harmonised Gospel.

Where do you get a reference for this? The churches were already in uproar over hypostasis vs. substance and pelagianism; I have no reason to believe that Sinaiticus came from a church which would respect back translations which were not specifically promulgated by the Pope at an earlier date. If they were promulgated, then it doesn’t seem necessary for Jerome to have attempted to purify the Latin variations against the Hebrew.

OK, but you didn’t answer the question about the Latin in Sirac which is the one I asked about. The passage in the NT holds different meanings in the Greek and the Latin; but does the OT passage?

Sirac 31:22 Quam sufficiens est homini eruditio vinum exiguum !/ et in dormiendo non laborabis ab illo,/ et non senties dolorem./

I agree. I am not actually familiar with this text, and I understand the context to be different. There is then in Sirac, a commandment against excess, while in Timothy, there is advice against abstinance.

The context of Sirac makes it clear that wine was indicated to help settle stomachs; and I infer that there is a limit on how much wine one ought to drink before getting rid of bad food / too much food by “prudent” upheaval instead of more wine.

I don’t see “modico” in the sentence; so I will have to say that the Latin translates the two passages differently than the consistency of the LXX Greek with the NT Greek which has “oligo” (few) in both places. The LXX OT reading has both meanings – moderation and few because of an extended explanation and Context.
Regardless of the Later Latin, I would expect Timothy – being a bishop – to have known the OT in Greek; esp. as Paul wrote in Greek as well.

The use of the dative/ablative in the sentence implies that in English, we should use a preposition, and the most suitable would be ‘of’, indicating the ablative case.
So the sense would be:
“noli adhuc aquam bibere sed vino modico utere propter stomachum tuum et frequentes tuas infirmitates”
noli adhuc aquam bibere :: Not onle water (are you) to drink… Here the accusative, so water is Direct Object.
sed vino modico utere :: … but of {moderate wine} (are you) to use…
propter stomachum tuum et frequentes tuas infirmitates :: … for thy stomach and …etc.

But all that proves is that the Latin translation may be “little wine” as opposed to “drink little” – however, in practice, these two expressions can be the same.
If he drinks only a little wine – he dilutes it with his stomach/food even if he drinks it full strength. But it doesn’t have to be “weak” wine in either case.

Can you show anyplace in any Latin scripture that “modico” means “weak”.
It doesn’t need to be wine, but weak anything.

My view is that moderators are strong things (virtuous) – they even govern the threads here at CAF. Drink “moderated wine” in English, conveys both possibilities – that one uses a full strength wine, but in a way to prevent it’s strength from taking over Timothy’s sensibilities. The passage in the OT talks about both dimensions – the quality of wine, and the quantity. I find it odd that in Latin, you seem to be suggesting that the advice of scripture in the OT which Paul studied extensively would be different than the advice he gave to timothy, a bishop who is in the same public relations position as the figure in Sirac.

There are 2 points to be made:
1/ Immoderate consumption of wine should be avoided.
2/ Wine, if moderate by strenth, or quantity, is necessary for good health, specially if the drinking-water is tainted.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

The best Old Latin was the comission of Pope Victorious I, the first African Pope, from Carthage. His comission was to unify the church, and he had the use of the ‘University’ at Alexandria, otherwise known as the Great Library. After the havoc wrought by J Caesar, there was much rebuilding of stock, and that is how so many Christian documents found their way there. There is no official record of this, but the translations of the gospels, which may originally been a harmonised Gospel, was so good that it was circulated to all the churches, and back translated into the local dialects. This would have been the Gospel used some 200 years later by Victor of Capua, from which both Matthew and John can be reconstructed, virtually complete.

Which would also account for the so called Q source, since you are proposing an alternate way that the expressions were harmonized. St. Mark, being a disciple of St. Peter, would then have priority not based on original writing date/time – but as the disciple of the Pope during unification, St. Mark would be given priority.

If such a document is what Jerome was working from, then that would explain the accusation of corruption, and also the exact duplication of passages, where a missing text in a reconstructed Gospel was conflated from a harmonised Gospel.
I agree. I am not actually familiar with this text, and I understand the context to be different. There is then in Sirac, a commandment against excess, while in Timothy, there is advice against abstinance.

Point well taken.

The use of the dative/ablative in the sentence implies that in English, we should use a preposition, and the most suitable would be ‘of’, indicating the ablative case.
So the sense would be:
“noli adhuc aquam bibere sed vino modico utere propter stomachum tuum et frequentes tuas infirmitates”
noli adhuc aquam bibere :: Not onle water (are you) to drink… Here the accusative, so water is Direct Object.
sed vino modico utere :: … but of {moderate wine} (are you) to use…
propter stomachum tuum et frequentes tuas infirmitates :: … for thy stomach and …etc.

I observe in the Greek, that when a prepositional phrase is constructed in English translation, the the preposition “of” is tied to the genitive (generation/ownership) case; Although exceptions are possible, I find that they generally are not necessary and appeals to ablative case of the genitive can be over-stressed. I note, also, that the dative generally is associated with “locations”; in, about, above, etc. and that sometimes, if there is an exception using the dative/genitive case – it is to distinguish between two specific prepositions and this distinction or preference of preposition can be checked by doing simple text searches in Greek and looking for inconsistencies / logical errors introduced by rigorous application of the rule.

I am, of course, relying on your sense of the Latin – but it does strike me strange that the specific preposition “of” (belonging to) would be the preferred preposition when a dative case was used, (as you reMark it is dative) So, I would anticipate that another preposition may be more precise than plain old “of” in English, although it may render the translation awkward in English grammatical sensibilities.

There are 2 points to be made:
1/ Immoderate consumption of wine should be avoided.
2/ Wine, if moderate by strenth, or quantity, is necessary for good health, specially if the drinking-water is tainted.

I believe you are being accurate; although point 2/ in our examples is a necessity based on time and place and resources – so that wisdom in discerning where and when to use wine may change. But there is another aspect of 2/ which is important:

John 3:12 If I have spoken to you earthly things, and you believe not: how will you believe, if I shall speak to you heavenly things?

Jesus instituted the use of wine in the covenant as blood; blood is a sign of a life cut, likewise water is a sign of life OR death; drowning or drinking.

Tying the use of wine (as a point) to a rule of time and place is going to cause people to consider the institution of wine in the Eucharist to also be subject to change through time.

Clearly, then, point 2/ needs to be examined more closely in a broader scriptural context than we have done here to prevent people from jumping to premature conclusions. By analogy; I will comment that In the Catholic Tradition, baptism is absolutely necessary to enter in heaven (but sacramental baptism before death is not); Therefore, consider that among christian divisions, a dispute has arisen regarding the necessity of water baptism. This dispute is arguably because the sciences of earth, water, wind, and air have changed since the time scripture was written. This babel like confusion of language serves to protect the good from the wicked according to scripture; but it requires a faithful scribe to draw forth from the OLD as well as the NEW in order to establish the correct timeless meaning. I don’t have that wisdom yet, regarding point 2/, but I anticipate that it is a valuable learning for a Catholic to have.