PDA

View Full Version : How strong was the strong drink?



reformedct
Jan 4th 2009, 06:52 PM
Deut 14:26:

26 and spend the money for whatever you desire—oxen or sheep or wine or strong drink, whatever your appetite craves. And you shall eat there before the Lord your God and rejoice, you and your household.

I looked up the word shekar (strong drink in Hebrew)

and it said intensly alcoholic drink.

So what would be the equivalent today? like patron? or jaegermeister?

Studyin'2Show
Jan 4th 2009, 06:56 PM
Drinking strong drink does not equate with getting drunk. Yes, if you drink too much you will get drunk but you can also have a drink and not go overboard. ;)

God Bless!

Emanate
Jan 4th 2009, 07:12 PM
If drunkenness is a sin, how strong do you think the strong drink was?


Drunkennes is not a sin, the actions generally associated with drunkennes are the sin. Catch 22 (almost).

Yukerboy
Jan 4th 2009, 07:17 PM
The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like.

While I will agree that drunkenness is no longer a sin to one who is born again, it is definitely an act of the sinful nature.

mikebr
Jan 4th 2009, 08:31 PM
Deut 14:26:

26 and spend the money for whatever you desire—oxen or sheep or wine or strong drink, whatever your appetite craves. And you shall eat there before the Lord your God and rejoice, you and your household.

I looked up the word shekar (strong drink in Hebrew)

and it said intensly alcoholic drink.

So what would be the equivalent today? like patron? or jaegermeister?


I think that at least one translation has translated strong drink as beer. Seems like maybe the a Baptist study bible.

mikebr
Jan 4th 2009, 08:41 PM
"It is possible to tolerate a little elevation, when a man takes a drink or two too much after working hard and when he is feeling low. This must be called a frolic. But to sit day and night, pouring it in and pouring it out again, is piggish... all food is a matter of freedom, even a modest drink for one's pleasure. If you do not wish to conduct yourself this way, if you are going to go beyond this and be a born pig and guzzle beer and wine, then, if this cannot be stopped by the rulers, you must know that you cannot be saved. For God will not admit such piggish drinkers into the kingdom of heaven [cf. Gal. 5:19-21]... If you are tired and downhearted, take a drink; but this does not mean being a pig and doing nothing but gorging and swilling... You should be moderate and sober; this means that we should not be drunken, though we may be exhilarated."


Seems like Luther thought a light buzz was not harmful.

godsgirl
Jan 4th 2009, 10:05 PM
If you are a Christian who drinks alcohol, you must consider your motives carefully.

Based on a thorough examination of the Greek texts, the author of Wine in the Bible: A Biblical Study on the Use of Alcoholic Beverages http://www.layhands.com/zOffsiteLink.jpg (http://www.biblicalperspectives.com/books/wine_in_the_bible/1.html) provides interesting evidence that Jesus and the apostles never drank alcoholic wine, nor did they ever approve of alcohol in any form. This would mean that Christians have no Scriptural support for drinking any alcoholic drinks, even in moderation.

reformedct
Jan 4th 2009, 10:10 PM
If you are a Christian who drinks alcohol, you must consider your motives carefully.

Based on a thorough examination of the Greek texts, the author of Wine in the Bible: A Biblical Study on the Use of Alcoholic Beverages http://www.layhands.com/zOffsiteLink.jpg (http://www.biblicalperspectives.com/books/wine_in_the_bible/1.html) provides interesting evidence that Jesus and the apostles never drank alcoholic wine, nor did they ever approve of alcohol in any form. This would mean that Christians have no Scriptural support for drinking any alcoholic drinks, even in moderation.

There is already a thread about whether drinking alcohol or not is a sin. This is not what i want this thread to be.

The focus of this thread is to seek to know how strong was the strong drink in Deuteronomy 14:26

TrustingFollower
Jan 4th 2009, 10:27 PM
If you are a Christian who drinks alcohol, you must consider your motives carefully.

Based on a thorough examination of the Greek texts, the author of Wine in the Bible: A Biblical Study on the Use of Alcoholic Beverages http://www.layhands.com/zOffsiteLink.jpg (http://www.biblicalperspectives.com/books/wine_in_the_bible/1.html) provides interesting evidence that Jesus and the apostles never drank alcoholic wine, nor did they ever approve of alcohol in any form. This would mean that Christians have no Scriptural support for drinking any alcoholic drinks, even in moderation.
Godsgirl, all here know how you feel on the subject of alcohol and if it is a sin for you then don't partake in it. Do not condemn others that do where as it is not a sin for everyone. To say that Jesus and the apostles never drank alcoholic wine is simply not true. The bible does not state that drinking of alcohol is a sin only drunkenness. Excessive drinking to the point of being a drunkard would be a sin. So if you can show in the scriptures that alcohol is sin in and of itself please do so, but do not go on a rant to derail this thread.

reformedct
Jan 4th 2009, 10:30 PM
Godsgirl, all here know how you feel on the subject of alcohol and if it is a sin for you then don't partake in it. Do not condemn others that do where as it is not a sin for everyone. To say that Jesus and the apostles never drank alcoholic wine is simply not true. The bible does not state that drinking of alcohol is a sin only drunkenness. Excessive drinking to the point of being a drunkard would be a sin. So if you can show in the scriptures that alcohol is sin in and of itself please do so, but do not go on a rant to derail this thread.


thank you very much for the comment. godsgirl i love you as my sister in Christ but as i said before this thread has nothing to do with wine. Anyone who is bringing up wine is getting off topic:


The focus of this thread is to seek to know how strong was the strong drink in Deuteronomy 14:26



The focus of this thread is to seek to know how strong was the strong drink in Deuteronomy 14:26



The focus of this thread is to seek to know how strong was the strong drink in Deuteronomy 14:26

threebigrocks
Jan 4th 2009, 10:35 PM
Deut 14:26:

26 and spend the money for whatever you desire—oxen or sheep or wine or strong drink, whatever your appetite craves. And you shall eat there before the Lord your God and rejoice, you and your household.

I looked up the word shekar (strong drink in Hebrew)

and it said intensly alcoholic drink.

So what would be the equivalent today? like patron? or jaegermeister?

Well, we know there is a difference between strong drink and wine, that is clear. Wine is made from fermented grapes. Do we know if strong drink is also made from grapes? I'd think not, but probably grain.

reformedct
Jan 6th 2009, 06:32 PM
Well, we know there is a difference between strong drink and wine, that is clear. Wine is made from fermented grapes. Do we know if strong drink is also made from grapes? I'd think not, but probably grain.


some have said that there are some versions of the bible that actually say beer i think?

JimC in NM
Jan 7th 2009, 05:26 AM
Deut 14:26:

26 and spend the money for whatever you desire—oxen or sheep or wine or strong drink, whatever your appetite craves. And you shall eat there before the Lord your God and rejoice, you and your household.

I looked up the word shekar (strong drink in Hebrew)

and it said intensly alcoholic drink.

So what would be the equivalent today? like patron? or jaegermeister?

Hard to say how strong or what method would have been used. Distillation as we think of it wasn't really used until around 700-800 AD, and even then it was crude. However there is another method that might have been used, and it's simple to use on ANY alcoholic beverage like beer or wine to make it "intensely alcoholic". Freeze distilling...that is to freeze the fermented fruit or grain, with about 10 percent alcohol, and basicly turn it into a slush. Drain of the remaining liquid, which has a much higher alcohol content, (and freezes at a lower temp), and the result is about 30 - 40 percent alcohol (or 80 proof) It would be roughly the equivalent of modern rum or brandy. I don't know that this was the method used to produce "strong drink", but it would seem at least feasible. I doubt any other ancient distilling method would have produced anything any stronger.
Sorry I can't answer your question for sure, but at least this is a possibility.

JimC in NM
Jan 19th 2009, 09:27 PM
I guess my last post answered (or at least made a reasonable attemptat answering) your question? I haven't seen anymore comments or posts....

reformedct
Jan 19th 2009, 09:32 PM
I guess my last post answered (or at least made a reasonable attemptat answering) your question? I haven't seen anymore comments or posts....

haha i think many had no clue that there was even a verse in the Bible commending strong drink much less knowing how strong it was lol. I would like some more answers if anyone else has information?

Emanate
Jan 19th 2009, 09:33 PM
haha i think many had no clue that there was even a verse in the Bible commending strong drink much less knowing how strong it was lol. I would like some more answers if anyone else has information?


Amazing that it was a suggested use of the tithe. Our pet doctrinal stances sometimes take a nose dive when compared with scripture.

reformedct
Jan 19th 2009, 09:36 PM
Amazing that it was a suggested use of the tithe. Our pet doctrinal stances sometimes take a nose dive when compared with scripture.


i am reminded of this everytime i see thugs pouring out liqour for dead gangsters such as Tupac or a family member etc as some kind of offering. They stole drink offerings from the Bible! lol

RabbiKnife
Jan 19th 2009, 09:42 PM
How strong was "strong drink?"

Apparently strong enough to not be "weak drink"!

Veretax
Jan 21st 2009, 12:49 PM
Drinking strong drink does not equate with getting drunk. Yes, if you drink too much you will get drunk but you can also have a drink and not go overboard. ;)

God Bless!

aren't pretty much all fermented drinks today stronger than what they had back then?

Studyin'2Show
Jan 21st 2009, 01:07 PM
aren't pretty much all fermented drinks today stronger than what they had back then?In all honesty, I have no clue. :dunno: Whether they were or not, it seems clear that people could indeed get 'drunk' in biblical times. My goodness, I've watched nature shows where animals have gotten tipsy eating fruit that has naturally fermented on the ground. :lol: My point is simply that it really doesn't matter. We should avoid drunkenness but I don't think we have to avoid fermented drink. That's a personal choice. I respect those that don't and would expect that they should respect that I have chosen to have an occasional glass of wine. :)

God Bless!
Denise

Emanate
Jan 21st 2009, 03:07 PM
aren't pretty much all fermented drinks today stronger than what they had back then?


Not according to unbiased researchers i.e. researchers who are not trying to prove that liqour is bad. I have even heard teachers say it was stronger because there were no unhealthy preservatives like we have today.

Fresco
Jan 21st 2009, 03:16 PM
In all honesty, I have no clue. :dunno: Whether they were or not, it seems clear that people could indeed get 'drunk' in biblical times. My goodness, I've watched nature shows where animals have gotten tipsy eating fruit that has naturally fermented on the ground. :lol: My point is simply that it really doesn't matter. We should avoid drunkenness but I don't think we have to avoid fermented drink. That's a personal choice. I respect those that don't and would expect that they should respect that I have chosen to have an occasional glass of wine. :)

God Bless!
Denise
I agree with that. I certainly love my beer, but I dont drink to the point where I cant stand on my 2 legs anymore. If you drink to get drunk you obviously have a problem and shouldnt drink at all.

The Bible says not to become a drunkard, it doesnt say we cant drink at all.

Veretax
Jan 21st 2009, 03:41 PM
truthfully I am probably more turned off to the consumption of Alcoholic Beverages more from the behaviors I witnessed from my floor mates back when I was in the Dorms, than to any specific thing God has said. I've seen how out of control, weak minded, and just in general foolish some people look when they've had too much, and Given that I never want to have someone say that my testimony was hurt because just once i had to much, I tend not to even consider them as a beverage item.

Although I will warn my brothers to be careful in reading directions on medicines that have them too. I once mistook the dosage to read as tablespoons instead of teaspoons, and my wife figured out pretty quickly that I was perhaps suffering from a bit too much. that was of course a mistake on my part, but I figured I'd share that warning to others who may not have thought about it.

Brother Mark
Jan 21st 2009, 11:50 PM
aren't pretty much all fermented drinks today stronger than what they had back then?

Who knows? I know that stills are not a modern invention. It's a rather simple process.

Scubadude
Jan 22nd 2009, 12:22 AM
Drunkennes is not a sin, the actions generally associated with drunkennes are the sin. Catch 22 (almost).


I like the way you think.

Even C.S Lewis liked hagging out at the pub, enjoying the "buzz" of a few pints and good conversation.

Brother Mark
Jan 22nd 2009, 02:06 AM
I like the way you think.

Even C.S Lewis liked hagging out at the pub, enjoying the "buzz" of a few pints and good conversation.

Don't overlook the verses quoted above. Drunkenness is forbidden in scripture. ;)

reformedct
Jan 22nd 2009, 02:10 AM
what would constitute drunkenness? my guess would be drinking to a degree that you begin to lose self-control right?

i dont think having a few light beers is bad as long as you are obeying the law of the land and maintaining self-control/awareness right?

i had a beer with a friend a while back and i felt fine. Even took a final exam a hour later lol

Scubadude
Jan 22nd 2009, 09:08 AM
i had a beer with a friend a while back and i felt fine. Even took a final exam a hour later lol



:lol::lol::lol:



That's too funny!

It kind of gives a new meaning to the term, "final call", ahy?

Fresco
Jan 22nd 2009, 03:30 PM
what would constitute drunkenness? my guess would be drinking to a degree that you begin to lose self-control right?

i dont think having a few light beers is bad as long as you are obeying the law of the land and maintaining self-control/awareness right?

i had a beer with a friend a while back and i felt fine. Even took a final exam a hour later lol
I define it to the point where you either cant walk, head is spinning too much...etc.
Also I think drinking daily is wrong, it should be reserved for weekends, parties, feasts, watching football....etc

And of course if you drink to the point where it interferes with work, family, marriage...etc, you have a problem and shouldnt drink at all

HisLeast
Jan 22nd 2009, 04:26 PM
Also I think drinking daily is wrong, it should be reserved for weekends, parties, feasts, watching football....etc

Why would it be wrong to drink daily?

Fresco
Jan 22nd 2009, 05:35 PM
Why would it be wrong to drink daily?
Nothing, if its a couple of glasses of wine or beers for dinner.

But some people drink a whole case of beer every night, I think thats overdoing it

TrustingFollower
Jan 22nd 2009, 06:40 PM
Nothing, if its a couple of glasses of wine or beers for dinner.

But some people drink a whole case of beer every night, I think thats overdoing it
A whole case of beer a night would classify as a drunkard.

JimC in NM
Jan 22nd 2009, 09:33 PM
Why would it be wrong to drink daily?

As I've mentioned in a different thread, I have a drink (one and very occasionally two) almost every night. Following a major heart attack several years ago, my cardiologist said that it would probably be beneficial, although he wouldn't recommend it as a sole reason to start drinking alcohol if someone didn't drink already. I definitely DO NOT drink to get "drunk". Several recent studies have shown that there are legitimate "medicinal purposes" for alcohol, as long as it doesn't progress into a drinking "problem". Western medicine and science, in so many areas, is just now beginning to catch up to ancient wisdom, and Biblical truth. Anything in EXCESS, can be harmful, and CAN become a sin. I've actually had someone condemn me for having a single drink, as they puffed away on their cigarette! :B

Scubadude
Jan 22nd 2009, 10:14 PM
Don't overlook the verses quoted above. Drunkenness is forbidden in scripture. ;)


Yah? Well, the Bible also says women should were a covering on their head at certain times. :P

Benaiah
Jan 22nd 2009, 10:20 PM
Yah? Well, the Bible also says women should were a covering on their head at certain times. :P

Anytime they are not wearing make up?

:D

Runs...

Brother Mark
Jan 23rd 2009, 01:19 AM
Yah? Well, the Bible also says women should were a covering on their head at certain times. :P

Ah, so I guess we can just throw out what it says on drunkenness then. :rolleyes:

shepherdsword
Jan 23rd 2009, 01:25 AM
Well, we know there is a difference between strong drink and wine, that is clear. Wine is made from fermented grapes. Do we know if strong drink is also made from grapes? I'd think not, but probably grain.

Is there a clear scriptural reference for this? I have always assumed that "strong drink" referred to any fermented and alcoholic beverage but like I said..it's an assumption

reformedct
Jan 23rd 2009, 01:41 AM
Yah? Well, the Bible also says women should were a covering on their head at certain times. :P
cool! i didnt know we could pick and choose what and what we dont obey! im going to go fornicate!


sike

we must correctly interpret we cant just throw out stuff because it doesnt "sound" right.

i pulled this up to show a womans hair can be considered a covering:

Question: "Should Christian women wear head coverings?"

Answer: 1 Corinthians 11:3-16 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/niv/1%20Corinthians%2011.3-16) addresses the issue of women and head coverings. The context of the entire passage of 1 Corinthians 11:3-16 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/niv/1%20Corinthians%2011.3-16) is submission to the God-given order and "chain of command." A "covering" on a woman's head is used as an illustration of the order, headship, and the authority of God. The key verse of this passage is 1 Corinthians 11:3 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/niv/1%20Corinthians%2011.3) "But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God." The implications of this verse are found in the rest of the passage. The order is: God the Father, God the Son, the man or husband, and the woman or wife. The veil or covering on the head of a believing Corinthian wife showed that she was under the authority of her husband, and therefore under submission to God.

Within this passage is also verse 10: "For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels." Why is that important to angels? The relationship of God with men is something that angels watch and learn from (1 Peter 1:12 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/niv/1%20Peter%201.12)). Therefore, a woman's submission to God's delegated authority over her is an example to angels. The holy angels, who are in perfect and total submission to God, expect that we, as followers of Christ, be the same.

This covering not only means a cloth but also can refer to a woman's hair length. How can we say that? We must take this verse in the context or the setting in which it is presented. "Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him? But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering" (1 Corinthians 11:14-15 (http://bible.logos.com/passage/niv/1%20Corinthians%2011.14-15))


i hope you dont throw out other verses as well just cuz they dont "sound" modern or right:cool: god bless!

Fresco
Jan 23rd 2009, 03:04 AM
cool! i didnt know we could pick and choose what and what we dont obey! im going to go fornicate!

Did you know the word fornicate was translated from Greek word 'porneia', which doesnt mean fornicate at all. It means the act of having sex for money, which means either prostitution or pornography.

Also Gideon and Solomon had concubines (READ: girlfriends), yet that was never condemned by God or anyone else in the Bible

Just my $0.02

reformedct
Jan 23rd 2009, 03:14 AM
Did you know the word fornicate was translated from Greek word 'porneia', which doesnt mean fornicate at all. It means the act of having sex for money, which means either prostitution or pornography.

Also Gideon and Solomon had concubines (READ: girlfriends), yet that was never condemned by God or anyone else in the Bible

Just my $0.02

thats interesting, i will have to do more study, though i have heard that porneia is more accurately described as a junk-drawer for all kinds of sexual immoralty, perhaps i am wrong. i will try to search more on that later

Fresco
Jan 23rd 2009, 03:23 AM
thats interesting, i will have to do more study, though i have heard that porneia is more accurately described as a junk-drawer for all kinds of sexual immoralty, perhaps i am wrong. i will try to search more on that later
When you read (my mind is drawing a blank right now) I think its Corinthians (is it Paul or Peter??), he goes through a list of sexual immorality, but pre-marital heterosexual sex is not one that he mentions.

The only time he condemns it is when two people plan to get married, he says its better to wait.
And if the couple are yearning with love for each other its better they get married.

Scubadude
Jan 23rd 2009, 03:50 AM
Ah, so I guess we can just throw out what it says on drunkenness then. :rolleyes:

Ha! It's all right. I've done it a time or two myself. I won't judge. :yes:

HisLeast
Jan 23rd 2009, 01:52 PM
Also Gideon and Solomon had concubines (READ: girlfriends), yet that was never condemned by God or anyone else in the Bible


They were a little more than that. They were, practically speaking, wives. The only difference is that the offspring of a concubine did not have legitimacy of title.

Fresco
Jan 23rd 2009, 02:47 PM
They were a little more than that. They were, practically speaking, wives. The only difference is that the offspring of a concubine did not have legitimacy of title.
And yet they werent married, were they??
King Solomon' had over a 100 concubines, also not married. Isnt that adultery??

Maybe if you let the wife in on the fact you have a concubine its no longer adultery. Meaning its not a secret and done behind her back. Thats the only way I can see it being approved by God.

Tell you what, I'm gonna start a whole new thread on this (controversial) topic

Brother Mark
Jan 23rd 2009, 04:30 PM
Ha! It's all right. I've done it a time or two myself. I won't judge. :yes:

Now this is silly. No need to judge. God already said it was wrong. He said drunkeness was wrong. Murder was wrong. Etc.

No need to simply redefine scriptures. It's there for the reading.

Pilgrimtozion
Jan 23rd 2009, 04:36 PM
When you read (my mind is drawing a blank right now) I think its Corinthians (is it Paul or Peter??), he goes through a list of sexual immorality, but pre-marital heterosexual sex is not one that he mentions.

The only time he condemns it is when two people plan to get married, he says its better to wait.
And if the couple are yearning with love for each other its better they get married.
The Bible clearly indicates that sex outside of marriage is a sin. Please review the board rules for our stance on this as a board.

With that being said, let's keep this thread on topic - the topic being alcohol, not sexual (im)morality.

Izdaari
Jan 23rd 2009, 04:41 PM
Hard to say how strong or what method would have been used. Distillation as we think of it wasn't really used until around 700-800 AD, and even then it was crude. However there is another method that might have been used, and it's simple to use on ANY alcoholic beverage like beer or wine to make it "intensely alcoholic". Freeze distilling...that is to freeze the fermented fruit or grain, with about 10 percent alcohol, and basicly turn it into a slush. Drain of the remaining liquid, which has a much higher alcohol content, (and freezes at a lower temp), and the result is about 30 - 40 percent alcohol (or 80 proof) It would be roughly the equivalent of modern rum or brandy. I don't know that this was the method used to produce "strong drink", but it would seem at least feasible. I doubt any other ancient distilling method would have produced anything any stronger.
Sorry I can't answer your question for sure, but at least this is a possibility.
I think freeze distilled "ice wine" such as you describe is by far the most likely possibility.

And as to the merits of consuming alcohol, I agree with Martin Luther:


"It is possible to tolerate a little elevation, when a man takes a drink or two too much after working hard and when he is feeling low. This must be called a frolic. But to sit day and night, pouring it in and pouring it out again, is piggish... all food is a matter of freedom, even a modest drink for one's pleasure. If you do not wish to conduct yourself this way, if you are going to go beyond this and be a born pig and guzzle beer and wine, then, if this cannot be stopped by the rulers, you must know that you cannot be saved. For God will not admit such piggish drinkers into the kingdom of heaven [cf. Gal. 5:19-21]... If you are tired and downhearted, take a drink; but this does not mean being a pig and doing nothing but gorging and swilling... You should be moderate and sober; this means that we should not be drunken, though we may be exhilarated."Well, I don't agree with him all the way, because I do think an alcoholic can be saved despite his addiction, but I agree with the rest.

(Thanks to mikebr for the Luther quote.)

Scubadude
Jan 23rd 2009, 06:16 PM
Now this is silly. No need to judge. God already said it was wrong. He said drunkenness was wrong. Murder was wrong. Etc.

No need to simply redefine scriptures. It's there for the reading.


I said it jokingly, but I do think we find all sorts of things in scripture to "through out", or embrace, depending on the socio/cultural context. We know the Bible also talks about saying bad words, but some of the godliest men I know agree that occasionally, only a good cuss word gives the moment the proper punctuation. And, I agree, occasionally. (It's not best to teach children this, though. ;))

I'm sure you've discussed it a million times, gluttony is also condemned in the Bible, but as a nation we seem to feel very comfortable turning our heads when it comes to doing a lot about it (Put down that Twinkie!). I'm not making the argument that this would be a justification for drunkenness. I am trying to point to the fact that we chose what is and isn't bad, as a society I mean (spiritual society as well), and how harshly we think the infractions need to be enforced in an effort to generate voluntary compliance (spiritual society as well). I don't think I'm trying to be cynical.

JimC in NM
Jan 23rd 2009, 10:17 PM
I think freeze distilled "ice wine" such as you describe is by far the most likely possibility.

And as to the merits of consuming alcohol, I agree with Martin Luther:

Well, I don't agree with him all the way, because I do think an alcoholic can be saved despite his addiction, but I agree with the rest.

(Thanks to mikebr for the Luther quote.)


I don't think Galatians 5:19-21 was actually saying an alcoholic couldn't be saved, although I know some that would interpret it that way. If taken in context, Paul was including drunkenness as ONE of the symptoms or actions demonstrated by someone WILLFULLY continuing to live in sin. I actually stumbled across freeze distillation as a teenager, on our farm, and then read more about it later. We had a barrel of apple cider that had fermented in the root cellar, and I was tasked with getting rid of it a bucket at a time, feeding it to the pigs along with their regular feed. (Dad didn't like to waste anything, and it provided some interesting and entertaining results!) I had left a plastic bucket out one night, to use the next morning, and it came a pretty hard Rocky Mountain freeze that night.... add a little teenage curiosity about the apple cider "slush".... well,... needless to say I read later that the beverage I poured off was really nothing new, and was known as "AppleJack". Whew!.... I always had to smile about the box cereal of that name..... looking back, though, I guess I should wonder about the symbolism of drinking what was being fed to the pigs.....