Do you think that time itself could be a consequence of original sin?

[Melisa Jane]

BOOK WEBSITE: https://ygodallowsevil.com

Do you think that time itself could be a consequence of original sin?

BE SURE TO VISIT THE BOOK WEBSITE AT: https://ygodallowsevil.com

[Jennifer Bells]

No, i do not think that time is the consequences of the original sin. It depends on the angle you are viewing it from.

[Auth Allow]

The idea that time itself is a product of original sin is one of the essential premises behind the book (and the basis for the book’s title). The book’s argument in support of this premise focuses on the language in Genesis 1:26 declaring that man was made in the “likeness” of God himself (who is timeless), together with the language in Genesis 3:17 stating the “ground” itself became “cursed” as a result of the original sin of the first two humans.

If man really was made in the “likeness” of God (which implies that the first two humans exercised “godlike” power over their dominion in their pre-fallen state), and if their immoral decision at the moment of the Fall did in fact cause all “ground” in God's Creation to become cursed, then it seems reasonable to conclude that the entire material order could have changed from a timeless state of being to a time-based one.

So, yes, based on the plain language of Genesis, time itself may very well be a product of original sin.

[Owuamanam Eberechukwu]

No, i do not think that time is the consequences of the original sin. It depends on the angle you are viewing it from.

All things changed after the sin. I dont feel convinced with your view. Can you give more reasons

[Owuamanam Eberechukwu]

The idea that time itself is a product of original sin is one of the essential premises behind the book (and the basis for the book’s title). The book’s argument in support of this premise focuses on the language in Genesis 1:26 declaring that man was made in the “likeness” of God himself (who is timeless), together with the language in Genesis 3:17 stating the “ground” itself became “cursed” as a result of the original sin of the first two humans.

If man really was made in the “likeness” of God (which implies that the first two humans exercised “godlike” power over their dominion in their pre-fallen state), and if their immoral decision at the moment of the Fall did in fact cause all “ground” in God's Creation to become cursed, then it seems reasonable to conclude that the entire material order could have changed from a timeless state of being to a time-based one.

So, yes, based on the plain language of Genesis, time itself may very well be a product of original sin.

This is a strong possibility but the question becomes WHY

[Auth Allow]

The book’s answer to your question “WHY” involves a number of integrated, overlapping arguments, which I’ve tried to summarize below. (To fully answer the question “WHY” there really isn’t any other option but to read the entire book, because the answer to the “WHY” question is what the book is about.)

To start, it is essential to understand the purpose for which God made man. According to the book, God made man for the purpose of entering into a timeless loving union with him. But for love to occur between any two individuals (including love between God and man), certain prerequisites must first be met.

The first of these prerequisites is that a person must actually exist as a being, for the simple and obvious reason that love cannot occur between two people unless those people exist. But here’s the thing, because God is a “timeless” being, no one can enter into a fully loving relationship with God unless that person is also a “timeless” being (i.e., eternal). For this reason, God makes the first two humans as timeless beings.

From the very outset of their existence, Adam and Eve enjoy the experience of perfect love with God and with one another in a timeless state of being (that is, a state of being in which time itself does not exist). But according to the book, the existence of two or more beings is not the only prerequisite of love. A second prerequisite of love is that each person in the relationship must place faith in the others, trusting that the others will not prioritize the acquisition of a self-centered objective over the continuance of their loving relationship with one another.

To exercise and develop such faith requires the absence of certainty. After all, if a man has total knowledge of another person’s thoughts and intentions, there would be no need for faith. Without faith, love is impossible. For this reason, God must give the first humans the opportunity to develop faith.

To do this, he creates them without knowledge of good and evil. Lacking knowledge of good, the first humans can’t be completely certain that God himself is wholly good. In the absence of certain knowledge on this issue, the first humans are left with the capacity to exercise faith, which in turn gives them the capacity to experience love.

But there is yet another prerequisite for love to be experienced, which is the ability of each person in a relationship to freely choose whether to continue to act in a selfless, beneficent manner toward the other individuals in a relationship.

According to the book, “The account of man’s life in Eden that is provided in Genesis 2 indicates that the first humans enjoyed the experience of love with God and with one another as long as everyone continued to make the voluntary decision to care as much about the others as they cared about themselves. But, if man decided to exercise his free will to place a selfish interest over his relationship with God, the entire reason for his existence would be undermined, with the result that his life would cease. This outcome of selfishness was stated unequivocally by God the Father in Genesis 2:16–17 when he cautioned Adam, ‘You may freely eat of every tree of the garden; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die.’”

Adam and Eve availed themselves of this self-centered choice when they decided to acquire knowledge of good and evil in spite of God's warning that this self-centered choice would result in death. In other words, they chose to believe that God was lying about the consequences of sin. There can be no clearer abandonment of faith than this.

This abandonment of faith undermined their wholly loving relationship with God because faith is an indispensable prerequisite of love. Because love is the whole point of life, when a being undermines the very reason for life itself, death is the fair and just consequence.

But how could Adam and Eve die if they were made as eternal, “timeless” beings? The book gives this explanation: “Eternal beings cannot die, for the simple reason that there is no endpoint to eternity. This means that Adam and Eve must have undergone a change from a transcendent, timeless state of existence to a finite, temporal one. A finite, temporal existence requires the advent of time itself. Such an existence requires, in other words, that the ‘timeless’ pre-fallen creation transform into a time-based or ‘space-time’ creation. Time itself is therefore a product of original sin.”

[Risper Ouma Anyango]

In my opinion, I do think it is a consequence of it. Time before the original sin seems to have appeared static because man had no trouble to face. But after the original sin, everything changed and so many things that weren't there became existential. The mere fact that death exists and we age means time is a consequence of the original sin

[Mercy Bolo]

No, I don't think time is a consequence of the original sin. In the creation story, God created different things on different days. Genesis in the Bible even elaborates that there was day and there was night. That points to the existence of time before the original sin.

[Jane Gaskins]

Absolutely, time is a direct result of the original sin. That was when men started aging, and women were made to bore children in pain and suffering.

[Rashad Deniro Price]

I don't know, sincerely. It could be or not. But if I am not mistaken, I think there is a mechanism of time keeping right from creation before mankind sinned.

[Abril Zacca]

This interpretation opens up complex questions about whether time is a limitation or a gift—a framework for the soul’s journey or a reminder of our separation from eternity. Either way, viewing time as a consequence of original sin provides a profound lens through which to examine human life, purpose, and the nature of redemption.

[D-řẹäł Odinakachukwu]

It’s an interesting idea. Some believe that time as we know it—marked by decay, aging, and death—might be a consequence of original sin, symbolizing humanity’s fall from eternal life. Before the fall, Adam and Eve’s existence was timeless in the sense of perfect communion with God. So, in a way, time and its limitations could reflect the broken state of creation, with eternity restored through redemption.

[Uchenna Precious]

I'm not sure I don't understand this question very well. However, I do not think time is a consequence of original sin.

[DarnerJose]

Hmmmmn. Interesting question. I do perceive time as a consequence of original sin because without it we'd all live long and know no death and without death the idea or rather the concept of time is almost useless.

[DarnerJose]

Hmmmmn. Interesting question. I do perceive time as a consequence of original sin because without it we'd all live long and know no death and without death the idea or rather the concept of time is almost useless.