Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Holey Bible arguments against Margaret Court

By Spencer Gear - posted Wednesday, 7 November 2018


What would cause many in the tennis community, mass media and social media to get up in arms about world champion tennis player, Marg1aret Court's, support for heterosexuality? She has boycotted flying with Qantas because it supports homosexual marriage.

Some in the Christian community oppose Dr Court's stand against homosexual marriage.

One is Robyn Whitaker who took Dr Court AO MBE to task. This is my response to 'Note to Margaret Court: the Bible isn't meant to be read that literally', Dr Whitaker of Trinity College,Melbourne, 2 June 2017 (ABC News, Brisbane, Qld)

Advertisement

What are the holes in Dr Robyn Whitaker's arguments against Margaret Court and Court's support for heterosexual marriage over Whitaker's backing of modern Christian families that include gay couples? These are three holes I found:

Hole 1: It starts with Whitaker's title that the Bible is not meant to be understood as literally as Margaret Court reads it.

Then Whitaker proceeds to do exacly what she told Court not to do. She literally accepted the fact that there are 66 books in the Bible and Abraham fathered children with his concubine as well as his wife.

Her literal interpretation continued. She accepted David and Solomon had entire palaces full of wives and concubines and polygamy was common as well as slaves being used for concubines. There was no hint in her article these were supposed to be interpreted metaphorically, allegorically or symbolically.

She made self-defeating statements with her examples, thus failing to meet her own standard of the Bible not being read as literally as in Court's approach.

Thus, Whitaker promoted a contradiction.

Advertisement

Hole 2:What is literal interpretation? She assumed we knew. When I was in high school, I learned that to understand a document literally meant to accept the plain meaning of the text. This includes the use of figures of speech and symbols.

I used Berkeley Mickelsen's text, Interpreting the Bible, in seminary. He wrote that 'literal' means the customarily acknowledged meaning of an expression in its particular context. For example, when Christ declared that he was the door, the metaphorical meaning of 'door' would be obvious. Although metaphorical, this evident meaning is included in literal interpretation.

Therefore, 'by literal meaning the writer refers to the usual or customary sense conveyed by words or expressions' (Mickelsen 1963:17). So when I read Whitaker's article online, I assumed that figures of speech were included in the literal meaning.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All

A longer version of this article can be read on Spencer Gear's homepage: "Fourteen Holey Bible arguments against Margaret Court".



Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

25 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Spencer Gear PhD is a retired counselling manager, independent researcher, Christian minister and freelance writer living in Brisbane Qld.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Spencer Gear

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of Spencer Gear
Article Tools
Comment 25 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy