With some today, hell is neither literal nor eternal. Others tell us that homosexuality really is not a sin, so it should be viewed as acceptable behavior for professing christians.
Then, we have those who say scripture is simply unreliable because the authors were merely interpreting what they saw and heard from a flawed human perspective.
Still others tell us to disregard biblical imperatives regarding gender roles and distinctions on the basis that these texts are culturally conditioned and thus restricted to first century era.
And now we have a whole new invention on the evangelical table. Carl Truman says the new “hot topic” involves the historicity of Adam. Huh?
Was Adam a real living human figure?
Did the fall actually happen or is it simply symbolic narrative intended to teach theological principle concerning all human experience?
Should Genesis 1-11 be viewed as historical narrative or approached simply as either myth,metaphor or allegory.
If non literal, does that mean Adam, Noah, the flood,and the judgment at Babel which determined all the diverse languages should be read as myth or fable?
>Who are the well-known scholars and authors advocating such views?
>How should we posture ourselves toward those who teach these fallacies?
>What effect does all this have upon biblical integrity and reliability?
Tim Challies interviews David Murray on whats really at stake. Murray has done extensive work in this area and I sincerely recommend listening to their discussion. It will alow you to become aware of the degree to which this issue has permeated the church today and enable the opportunity to give heed to the serious warning presented.
Click to hear the interview http://www.challies.com/writings/podcast/ck210-was-adam-a-real-man?