Personnel from the Creation Science Foundation in Brisbane, Australia, had traveled 1,700 kilometers to Victoria to conduct meetings in various centers. In one location, this minister opposed us publicly. Another minister, in the same church, had put an advertisement in the churchs weekly announcement sheet concerning our visit. The opposing minister obtained the stencil before the announcement sheet was printed and deleted the advertisement. He encouraged people to boycott our seminar program and made many discouraging public statements concerning our organization and teachings. He even told people that we were of the devil and they should not listen to us.

I made an appointment with this minister to discuss the issue with him. He explained that he believed Genesis was only symbolic, that there were a great many mistakes in the Bible and one could not take it as literally as I appeared to do. The reason we had this disagreement concerning creation/evolution was because we had a basic philosophical disagreement regarding our personal approach to the Scriptures. He agreed this was so, but again emphasized one could not take Genesis literally and that it was only symbolic. I asked him whether he believed that God created the heavens and the earth.

He said, "Yes, this was the message that Genesis was teaching."

Deliberately, I quoted Genesis 1:1, "Do you believe, ‘In the beginning God created the heavens and earth?"

He said, "Yes, of course I do. That is the message Genesis is getting across to us."

I explained to him that he had just taken Genesis 1:1 literally. He was asked whether Genesis 1:1 was symbolic, and, if not, why did he take it literally. I then asked whether Genesis 1:2 was literal or symbolic. I pointed out the inconsistency of accepting Genesis 1:1 as literal but saying the whole of Genesis was symbolic. He went on to say it was not important what Genesis said only what it meant was important.

"How can you ever understand the meaning of anything if you do not know what it says?" I asked. "If you cannot take what it says to arrive at the meaning, then the English (or any other) language really becomes nonsense."

I then asked him how he decided what was truth concerning the Scriptures. He replied, "By a consensus of opinion amongst the fellowship."

So I said, "This, then, is your basis for deciding what truth is. Where did you get this basis from, and how do you know that this is the right basis for deciding truth?"

He looked at me and said, "By a consensus of opinion amongst scholars."

I again posed the question to him, "If this, now, is your basis for deciding truth and determining whether or not your fellowship has come to the right conclusion about truth, how do you know that this is the right basis to determine what truth is?"