FWIW, I think there’s something to Jim Swindle’s explanation; it certainly appears, however, to segue from “Drunkenness is beneath kings, but not beneath the hapless,” to “In fact, as a king you should try to alleviate the pain of your suffering subjects however necessary,” (vv. 8-9) with handouts of booze falling under that provision. Interesting passage, that!

Mmmm … beer.

“… 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.”

The NASB, KJV, ASV, YLT uses “strong drink.”
The NKJV uses “similar drink” [to wine]
The Amplified uses “strong[er] drink.”
The NLT uses “alcoholic drink.”
The NIV uses “fermented drink.”
The Message, CEV, NCV, HCSB uses “beer.”

Mmmm … beer.

Yeah, I once heard a pastor try to interpret this verse in a speech against drunkenness. He said, “Drinking will make you forget your problems, but it won’t make them go away. Plus, you’ll have a hangover the next morning.” I thought he was adding his own stuff to the text there.

But I like what Jim Swindle said: Drinking is not for kings. Leave it to the winos.

Whether or not you’d agree with my interpretation, the main question here doesn’t appear to be what the verses say, but what they mean in context. As a result, our problem in understanding them is probably not the fault of our translations, but of our spiritual insensitivity. (I’m not saying that anyone who disagrees with my interpretation is insensitive; just that all of us, including me, are still at least slightly warped by sin.)

It would be interesting to know if there was a tradition of hikanos as a name of God prior to the LXX, or if this was an inspired choice by the translators (also appearing several times in Job – see the link to Suzanne’s post in the previous paragraph).