Wednesday 30 Jul
 photo BO-Button1_zps13524083.jpg


OKG Newsletter

Home · Articles · Opinion · Letters to the Editor · Adam and Eve...
Letters to the Editor

Adam and Eve 101

Merle D. Wright June 22nd, 2011

The points of view have been going on for weeks in the Gazette about the teaching of creationism in Oklahoma’s public schools, and it’s clear that the creationists need to start at the beginning before challenging the evolution-of-mankind science.

It should first be explained how mankind multiplied from the Garden of Eden. Genesis is fascinating, and the story about the first family is thumbsup. So, for those who want to see creationism taught, they certainly must agree to begin with the “beginning”: Adam and Eve 101.

In the beginning era, Adam and Eve had two sons, Cain and Abel, and Cain killed Abel and Adam and Eve had a third son, Seth, and this was the remaining family: dad, mom and two sons.

The account in Genesis continues and is fascinating, but leaves a huge question that has had me puzzled since my first sex-education class in junior high: How do two men who don’t have girlfriends, because there aren’t any, get the world’s population in motion? Reading Genesis, it makes me feel like I missed part of the story. Did I miss a few pages? Maybe I should re-read this, because somewhere I’ve missed something.

I’ve tried to figure this out using multiplication and even short division, but am still puzzled, and Einstein and Darwin are dead. Readers writing in to the Gazette have stirred this whole thing up again, so what am I to do but ask the No. 1 biblical question concerning the origin of man: Who done it and how?

—Merle Wright
Oklahoma City

  • Currently 3.5/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5


06.22.2011 at 07:11 Reply

Typically while addressing this issue creationists are often caught saying that "God found a way", or that Adam and Eve did in fact have other children.  But even if the latter were true, it would indicate incest.  The former seems really ridiculous when you consider that true believers consider the Bible pure truth.  Why then would this book omit such an important detail?

If you go on to read the story of Sodom and Gomorrah the story becomes even more convoluted.  You’re told the story of Lot, whom took in a stranger and gave him shelter.  The town folk, being degenerates, came to Lot and said, give us this man so that we may rape him.  And Lot being the upstanding citizen he was refused to give up the stranger and instead offered his own daughters for their lusts.  They refuse.  So Lot and his family flee the city just in time to avoid God’s wrath.  Unfortunately, Lot’s wife looked back at the city, and was turned into a pillar of salt.  So, Lot pressed on with his daughters, eventually stopping.  At this point, Lot’s daughters get it in their minds that it’s up to them to repopulate the planet.  So they get their father drunk and have their way with him. 

So there you have another odd situation.  God supposedly destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah to take out these sinners, but immediately after escaping the city, Lot’s daughters partake in an act (rape and incest) that should be considered equally sinful. 

The Bible is hardly a tale on morality.  I mean seriously, if you know a guy who says God told him to kill his son, you’re gonna lock him up in the Looney bin.  But Abraham takes his son up the mountain, and comes within an instant of murdering him when God tells him to stop, slaughter a Goat instead, and all is well.  I don’t know about the rest of the world, but if I think someone is about to murder their kid, I’m not going to wait till the 11th hour to see if God makes them stop.

I really hate to be the one to point this out, but with so much anti-Gay rhetoric being backed up by the Bible, why isn't there pro-incest and pro-rape rhetoric backed up by the Bible.  You either accept the whole book at face value, or you don't.  Seems to me a lot of people want to have their Cake and eat it too.