Time Travel

@vivify said
But when you get there their language won't be in Google translator.

@fmf said
When I get there, their language will have been in Google Translate since 2006, and I will be accessing it as it stands, as of 2022, using the tablet, FROM 6,000 years ago.

@vivify said
Not if you're the initial time traveler. Remember, you just said it's not in Google's translator.

So you're going back in time with a translator that doesn't have original language, or name of the original language (not to mention no wi-fi). You will therefore have no way of communicating with A & E.

@fmf said
I've been watching Dark, the German TV series, and now Picard series 2. Both feature time travel and ethical considerations.

Thought exercise:

Assuming the Garden of Eden allegory/account was literally true, would you consider going back in time to try and persuade Adam and Eve to resist the temptation [to consume the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil] by showing them evidence of the "fallen man" consequences in the intervening millennia?

@josephw

I don't even think God "time travels", but that's because he's already everywhere at once from eternity past to eternity future.

@josephw said
The imagination is a terrible thing to waste. Fiction is good for the imagination, but I think it serves only as a form of escape from the humdrum of reality, it seems.

@FMF

What did God do to "convince Adam to make the right choice"?

@sonship said
@FMF

What did God do to "convince Adam to make the right choice"?

Read it. And be believing not unbelieving.

"And Jehovah God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden you may eat freely, But if the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, of it you shall not eat; for in the day that you eat of ot you shall surely die." (Genesis 2: ...[text shortened]... under the grand [b]lie that to have nothing to do with
God is better for His creatures.

@fmf said
I am asking what did God do to prevent 6,000 years of human suffering? Did he do everything he possibly could to convince Adam and Eve that the "fallen state" would involve such abject misery?

Were God's efforts [to convince the only two humans he'd created up to that point about the consequences of eating the fruit] ...were his efforts morally sound?

@fmf said
If Adam and Eve had been given, by the traveller, a sudden vivid premonition about, say, the slaughter and depravity of the C20th, something you attribute to their disobedience, perhaps they wouldn't have eaten the fruit. If the Hebrew God had given them that sudden vivid premonition about the C20th, and they hadn't "fallen", maybe there would have been no slaughter and depravity ...[text shortened]... ercise, anyway, which is, of course, about the moral question mark over God's choices in this story.

@FMF

So, in other words - but without saying it unequivocally - you are conceding that, according to the story, God did not do everything he could possibly do to "convince Adam to make the right choice"?

"Now the serpent was more subtle than any other animal of the field that Jehovah made."

Without giving us all the details at that time, we are told:
1.) All the creatures were made by God.
2.) One of the creatures became a lying advesary to God.

Details are filled in latter in the Bible.
At this point, this is all we need to know right now.

"Now the serpent was more crafty than any other animal of the field that God had made."

And we need to know that he can only lie and oppose God.
And he came through the weaker vessel, the woman.

"And he said to the woman, Did God really say, You shall not eat of any tree of the garden? . . . And the serpent said to the woman, You shall not surely die!
For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be oened, and you will become like God, knowing good and evil. "(3:1b), 5)

This was the LIE mixed with some truth.

The lie - that they would not die.
The true part - God knew their eyes would be opened and they would be like God.

I believe that this means they would think they were independent and autonomous, not dependent upon God. No being is not depedent upon God.
To withdraw from God is sin and death.

@sonship said
"Now the serpent was more subtle than any other animal of the field that Jehovah made."

Without giving us all the details at t dependent upon God. No being is not depedent upon God.
To withdraw from God is sin and death.

The question is not about the morality of what "Satan" did in the story; the question is about the morality of what God did in the story.

@sonship said
There is little need for "other words." "In other words" is your ploy to get me to say what you would say. There is no need for you to suggest I am "conceding" anything as if there is some guilty thing to hide.