# Calling All Bible Experts **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 19, 2009, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-bible-experts/503536 "2009-07-19T16:04:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![adhay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecd19e/32.png) [@adhay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adhay)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2009, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-bible-experts/503536/41 "2009-07-20T00:28:49Z")
> [@](#): > > Now what is that quote about the answer being contained within the question? Was it “Slow and letter high”? ---
**Author:** ![ragerdude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d07c76/32.png) [@ragerdude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ragerdude)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2009, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-bible-experts/503536/42 "2009-07-20T00:58:15Z")
Consider the statements in context: John said to him, “Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and we tried to stop him because he was not following us.” 39 But Jesus said, “Do not stop him, because no one who does a miracle in my name will be able soon afterward to say anything bad about me, 40\*\* for whoever is not against us is for us." \*\* (Mark 9:38-40) Ἔφη αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰωάννης· διδάσκαλε, εἴδομέν τινα ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί σου ἐκβάλλοντα δαιμόνια καὶ ἐκωλύομεν αὐτόν, ὅτι οὐκ ἠκολούθει ἡμῖν. 39 ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν· μὴ κωλύετε αὐτόν. οὐδεὶς γάρ ἐστιν ὃς ποιήσει δύναμιν ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματί μου καὶ δυνήσεται ταχὺ κακολογῆσαί με· 40\*\* ὃς γὰρ οὐκ ἔστιν καθ᾿ ἡμῶν, ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἐστιν.\*\* (Mark 9:38-40) Read this carefully: Jesus is not saying, “those in the middle ground are on our side.” He is informing the mistaken disciples, who are portrayed as quite slow in Mark’s Gospel, that many who are _apparently_ in the middle are _actually_ on Jesus’ side, though it was unknown to the disciples. This situation is not at all like your A, B, C, D situation, **adhay**. In terms of your notation, it would be like a master teacher informing a dim-witted A, “Though you don’t know it, there is a person B that actually agrees with you 100%. You just haven’t gotten to know him.” It’s not a statement that includes C, but rather one that includes B. The point is that A was not aware that B was on his side. ---
**Author:** ![adhay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecd19e/32.png) [@adhay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adhay)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2009, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-bible-experts/503536/43 "2009-07-20T01:30:20Z")
> [@ragerdude](#): > > Consider the statements in context: > > John said to him, “Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and we tried to stop him because he was not following us.” 39 But Jesus said, “Do not stop him, because no one who does a miracle in my name will be able soon afterward to say anything bad about me, 40\*\* for whoever is not against us is for us." \*\* (Mark 9:38-40) > > Ἔφη αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰωάννης· διδάσκαλε, εἴδομέν τινα ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί σου ἐκβάλλοντα δαιμόνια καὶ ἐκωλύομεν αὐτόν, ὅτι οὐκ ἠκολούθει ἡμῖν. 39 ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν· μὴ κωλύετε αὐτόν. οὐδεὶς γάρ ἐστιν ὃς ποιήσει δύναμιν ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματί μου καὶ δυνήσεται ταχὺ κακολογῆσαί με· 40\*\* ὃς γὰρ οὐκ ἔστιν καθ᾿ ἡμῶν, ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἐστιν.\*\* (Mark 9:38-40) > > Read this carefully: Jesus is not saying, “those in the middle ground are on our side.” He is informing the mistaken disciples, who are portrayed as quite slow in Mark’s Gospel, that many who are _apparently_ in the middle are _actually_ on Jesus’ side, though it was unknown to the disciples. > > This situation is not at all like your A, B, C, D situation, **adhay**. Well I didn’t use your verses. The verses I chose show three Apostles (Gospels) in disagreement and in Luke’s case, disagreement with himself. > [@](#): > > In terms of your notation, it would be like a master teacher informing a dim-witted A, “Though you don’t know it, there is a person B that actually agrees with you 100%. You just haven’t gotten to know him.” It’s not a statement that includes C, but rather one that includes B. The point is that A was not aware that B was on his side. It would be more like A informing a dimwitted B, ““Though you don’t know it, there is a person C that actually agrees with you 100%. You just haven’t gotten to know him.” It’s a statement that includes C.” The point is that B was not aware that C was on his side" And again, an entirely different set of circumstances than my OP. ---
**Author:** ![adhay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecd19e/32.png) [@adhay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adhay)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2009, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-bible-experts/503536/44 "2009-07-20T01:42:59Z")
What A said to B was, “You thought C was D but he’s actually B.” ---
**Author:** ![adhay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecd19e/32.png) [@adhay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adhay)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2009, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-bible-experts/503536/45 "2009-07-20T01:55:23Z")
Hi, tomndebb. > [@](#): > > You’re probably on the wrong message board to seek a resolution of contradictions in the bible–and seriously the wrong message board for finding defenders of the bible based on claims that there are no contradicitions. Funny how things work out;) Can’t attempt a resolution of contradictions if there aren’t any. ---
**Author:** ![ragerdude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d07c76/32.png) [@ragerdude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ragerdude)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2009, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-bible-experts/503536/46 "2009-07-20T01:59:46Z")
[QUOTE=adhay] Well I didn’t use your verses. [/QUOTE] Yes, you did. You cited Mark 9:40 in your OP, for which I merely provided the context. Your other quotation of this saying, the parallel in Luke 9:50, teaches the same thing, in essentially the same context. [QUOTE=adhay] It would be more like A informing a dimwitted B, ““Though you don’t know it, there is a person C that actually agrees with you 100%. You just haven’t gotten to know him.” It’s a statement that includes C.” The point is that B was not aware that C was on his side" [/QUOTE] That makes no sense, since you’ve already **defined** B to be the one in 100% agreement with A, and you’ve **defined** C to be in neither disagreement nor agreement with A. You can’t now secretly change the definition of C from indifference to agreement. Here is what you said: [QUOTE=adhay] A and B totally agree with each other, D is in violent disagreement with A and B. C, otoh neither agrees nor disagrees with A and B. He’s undecided (he’s in the middle). [/QUOTE] If “C” is really B, then he’s not C. He’s just B. What do you think of **Indistinguishable** ’s statements, “If you’re not a male, you’re a female” and “If you’re not a female, you’re a male.” Do they contradict each other? ---
**Author:** ![adhay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecd19e/32.png) [@adhay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adhay)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2009, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-bible-experts/503536/47 "2009-07-20T02:24:47Z")
> [@](#): > > If “C” is really B, then he’s not C. He’s just B. A tells B that though B thinks C is like D, that C is 100% like B. > [@](#): > > What do you think of Indistinguishable’s statements, “If you’re not a male, you’re a female” and “If you’re not a female, you’re a male.” Do they contradict each other What’s to contradict? Together they make the statement, “You are either male or female.” ---
**Author:** ![Indistinguishable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/90ced4/32.png) [@Indistinguishable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Indistinguishable)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2009, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-bible-experts/503536/48 "2009-07-20T02:31:52Z")
And that’s the same with “If you’re not with us, you’re against us” and “If you’re not against us, you’re with us”. Together, they make the statement “You are either with us or against us.” [Just think about swapping “you are with us” in for “you are male” and swapping “you are against us” in for “you are female”.] ---
**Author:** ![adhay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecd19e/32.png) [@adhay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adhay)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2009, 3:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-bible-experts/503536/49 "2009-07-20T03:15:43Z")
Let’s go back to this. > [@](#): > > Sure. We can imagine that everyone is either male or female, and that all males are with me, and all females are against me. Then everyone who is not against me is not female and therefore male and therefore with me, and everyone who is not with me is not male and therefore female and therefore against me. So both claims come out true. Unfortunately it is not either/or. It’s us males and two thems. C’s, (call them androgynous) and D’s, females. The question is are we men going assume the androgynous as males or females? The comparison is imperfect but you didn’t give me much to work with. > [@](#): > > “If you’re not with us, you’re against us” and “If you’re not against us, you’re with us”. The first is exactly what Bush told the undecided nations with regard to our war on terror. In a sense he declared war on much of the world. Obama I hope takes the second route. In that case, he would prefer not to lump our non-enemies in with a small number of violent factions. . ---
**Author:** ![Indistinguishable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/90ced4/32.png) [@Indistinguishable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Indistinguishable)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2009, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-bible-experts/503536/50 "2009-07-20T03:26:42Z")
So what you’re saying is that the statements aren’t like “If you’re not male, you’re female” and “If you’re not female, you’re male”; rather, they’re like “If you’re not genuinely male, you’re nominally female” and “If you’re not genuinely female, you’re nominally male”, where you’ve distinguished between two different predicates of malehood and two different predicates of femalehood (genuine and nominal). And then the contradiction is in the nominal status of one who is neither genuinely male nor genuinely female, it presumably being impossible for them to be both nominally female and nominally male. Fine. If you read it that way, you have a contradiction (between “If you’re not genuinely with us, you’re nominally against us” and “If you’re not genuinely against us, you’re nominally with us”, on the assumption that some people may exist who are neither genuinely with us nor genuinely against us, and that no one can be considered both nominally against us and nominally with us). The question is… should we read it that way? (Where the “with us” in one statement means something different than the “with us” in the other statement, and similarly the “against us” in one statement means something different than the “against us” in the other statement) ---
**Author:** ![adhay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecd19e/32.png) [@adhay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adhay)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2009, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-bible-experts/503536/51 "2009-07-20T03:29:12Z")
Please comment on Bush and Obama above. ---
**Author:** ![Indistinguishable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/90ced4/32.png) [@Indistinguishable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Indistinguishable)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2009, 3:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-bible-experts/503536/52 "2009-07-20T03:35:30Z")
Well, I don’t know what Bush meant by “If you’re not with us, you’re against us”, whether he meant “If you’re not genuinely with us, you’re genuinely against us (i.e., no one in the world is actually indifferent in their opinions regarding us)” or whether he meant “If you’re not genuinely with us, you’re nominally against us (i.e., even though some may be actually indifferent in their opinions regarding us, I will construe them as our enemies, same as with those others who are actually hostile in their opinions regarding us)” or whether he meant some other reading. Clearly, many have taken him as giving the second reading here. Whether or not that is what Bush meant by whatever variation of those words he employed [I can no longer recall], it’s not clear to me that this is the proper interpretation of the Biblical line. But perhaps it is. But perhaps it isn’t. The issue isn’t cut-and-dry. There is a very natural reading of the Biblical lines on which there is no logical contradiction; indeed, it is the most literal possible reading. But that may not be the correct reading. But something like it may be. It’s not cut-and-dry. ---
**Author:** ![adhay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecd19e/32.png) [@adhay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adhay)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2009, 3:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-bible-experts/503536/53 "2009-07-20T03:36:22Z")
Try it this way. If you have a penis you’re with us, if you have a vagina, you’re against us. If you have neither at the moment, we’ll assume (for the time being) you’ll choose to grow a penis. ---
**Author:** ![adhay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecd19e/32.png) [@adhay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adhay)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2009, 3:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-bible-experts/503536/54 "2009-07-20T03:41:27Z")
> [@Indistinguishable](#): > > Well, I don’t know what Bush meant by “If you’re not with us, you’re against us”, whether he meant “If you’re not genuinely with us, you’re genuinely against us (i.e., no one in the world is actually indifferent in their opinions regarding us)” or whether he meant “If you’re not genuinely with us, you’re nominally against us (i.e., even though some may be actually indifferent in their opinions regarding us, I will construe them as our enemies, same as with those others who are actually hostile in their opinions regarding us)” or whether he meant some other reading. Clearly, many have taken him as giving the second reading here. Whether or not that is what he meant, it’s not clear to me that this is the proper interpretation of the Biblical line. But perhaps it is. But perhaps it isn’t. The issue isn’t cut-and-dry. There is a very natural reading on which there is no logical contradiction; indeed, it is the most literal possible reading. But that may not be the correct reading. How can I not agree? 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2009, 3:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-bible-experts/503536/55 "2009-07-20T03:46:34Z")
> [@Indistinguishable](#): > > _shrugs_ You go too far. I’d like to think of myself as reasonably literate (even in the sense of having read widely to the point of acquiring familiarity with various cultural touchstones), and I’ve never come anywhere close to this. Some level of awareness of Biblical allusions is to be expected, but actually having personally read every word of the thing, from start to finish? I wager very few people have done this, especially so outside of Christian households, and yet I would not deny all those hold-outs potential consideration as “literate”, any more than I would make any other particular corpus such a litmus test. Back when I was in grad school, about 1975, I said I would read and comment on the Bible if someone sent me one. This was on a religion message board. (On PLATO, long before there was even usenet.) Someone did and I did. Sure there are boring parts - lots of boring parts - but that’s true of War and Peace also. What I found is that there are lots of interesting parts skipped over during my religious education. I hadn’t even looked at the NT before this, so that was particularly useful. I don’t know about here, but in alt.atheism it struck me that atheists were far more likely to have read the entire Bible than theists. ETA: By the way, I’ve read all of Shakespeare also. Henry VI part I was a hard slog, but I’m glad I did. There is enough that I haven’t read that I make no claim to being literate myself, just to be clear. I’m getting there. ---
**Author:** ![ragerdude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d07c76/32.png) [@ragerdude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ragerdude)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2009, 4:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-bible-experts/503536/56 "2009-07-20T04:08:27Z")
[QUOTE=Indistinguishable] So what you’re saying is that the statements aren’t like “If you’re not male, you’re female” and “If you’re not female, you’re male”; rather, they’re like “If you’re not genuinely male, you’re nominally female” and “If you’re not genuinely female, you’re nominally male”, where you’ve distinguished between two different predicates of malehood and two different predicates of femalehood (genuine and nominal). And then the contradiction is in the nominal status of one who is neither genuinely male nor genuinely female, it presumably being impossible for them to be both nominally female and nominally male. Fine. If you read it that way, you have a contradiction (between “If you’re not genuinely with us, you’re nominally against us” and “If you’re not genuinely against us, you’re nominally with us”, on the assumption that some people may exist who are neither genuinely with us nor genuinely against us, and that no one can be considered both nominally against us and nominally with us). The question is… should we read it that way? (Where the “with us” in one statement means something different than the “with us” in the other statement, and similarly the “against us” in one statement means something different than the “against us” in the other statement) [/QUOTE] That is why I used the illustration of the integers. In the real world, there is a gray area concerning male and female, along with many things. [QUOTE=adhay] Try it this way. If you have a penis you’re with us, if you have a vagina, you’re against us. If you have neither at the moment, we’ll assume (for the time being) you’ll choose to grow a penis. [/QUOTE] Well, maybe, but that is radically different than the fairly dichotomous situation we have in the Gospels. Try reading the sayings in context, to see what issue they were addressing, and what they would have meant to the intended audience. I just don’t see how you can find a contradiction in the gospel accounts here. ---
**Author:** ![adhay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecd19e/32.png) [@adhay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adhay)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2009, 4:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-bible-experts/503536/57 "2009-07-20T04:23:50Z")
> [@](#): > > That is why I used the illustration of the integers. Let me use them. In the conflicting verses I would apply them like this. “If you’re not a positive integer, you’re a negative integer.” Excludes 0 “If you’re not a negative integer, you’re a positive integer.” Includes 0 This is no time to tell me that 0 is not actually a positive integer. ---
**Author:** ![adhay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecd19e/32.png) [@adhay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adhay)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2009, 4:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-bible-experts/503536/58 "2009-07-20T04:48:46Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally Posted by adhay > Try it this way. If you have a penis you’re with us, if you have a vagina, you’re against us. If you have neither at the moment, we’ll assume (for the time being) you’ll choose to grow a penis. > [@](#): > > Well, maybe, but that is radically different than the fairly dichotomous situation we have in the Gospels. Try reading the sayings in context, to see what issue they were addressing, and what they would have meant to the intended audience. I just don’t see how you can find a contradiction in the gospel accounts here. Well, I have no more to say on the subject. Perhaps you can point out a contradiction in the gospel accounts or do you believe there are none? ---
**Author:** ![ragerdude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d07c76/32.png) [@ragerdude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ragerdude)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2009, 4:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-bible-experts/503536/59 "2009-07-20T04:49:02Z")
> [@adhay](#): > > “If you’re not a positive integer, you’re a negative integer.” Excludes 0 > “If you’re not a negative integer, you’re a positive integer.” Includes 0 The main problem here is not whether there is a contradiction: what you have here is simply _two false statements_. (Zero is neither positive nor negative, so both conditionals are wrong. Here we have a true middle ground, which cannot be legitimately be said to be a part of either side.) There is nothing controversial about a list of two false statements. In order for this analogy to apply to the “contradiction” alleged in the OP, one must prove, from the scriptural context, the existence of an actual middle ground, as apposed to a hypothetical middle or an apparent middle. ---
**Author:** ![adhay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecd19e/32.png) [@adhay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adhay)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2009, 5:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-bible-experts/503536/60 "2009-07-20T05:51:09Z")
Well, again, I have no more to say. Perhaps you yourself can point out a contradiction in the gospel accounts or do you believe there are none? Just askin’. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-bible-experts/503536.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/calling-all-bible-experts/503536.md?page=4)