The Original Sin

 The fourth Christian dogma is that of the Atonement. Christianity declares that by disobeying God's Order not to eat of the forbidden fruit of knowledge, Adam sinned. The sin of Adam is inherited by all the children of Adam: all human beings are born sinful. The requirement of God's Justice is that a price must be paid for every sin. God cannot and will not allow a single sin to go unpunished. Now the only thing which can wipe out sin is the shedding of blood. As St. Paul Puts it,

"Without the shedding of blood there is no remission"

(Hebrews 9:22)

But this blood must be perfect, sinless, and incorruptible blood.

"As the original sin, being directed against God, was of infinite proportion, it demanded infinite recompense."

So Jesus Christ, the Son of God who had come from heaven, shed his holy, sinless blood, suffered indescribable agony, and died to pay the penalty for the sins of men. Because Jesus was

infinite God, he alone could pay the infinite price of sin. No one can be saved unless he accepts Jesus Christ as his redeemer. Everyone is doomed to suffer eternally in Hell because of his

sinful nature, unless he accepts atonement made for his sins by Jesus Christ by his blood?[1]

This dogma is divided into three parts: (i) the Original Sin, (ii) the belief that God's Justice requires that the penalty of blood must be paid for sin, and (iii) the belief that Jesus has paid the

price for the sins of men by his death on the cross and that salvation is only for those who believe in his vicarious sacrifice.

As to the first part, the Rev. De Groot writes:

"Scripture teaches us that Adam's sin passed unto all men (our Blessed Lady excepted). For in the words of St. Paul: Therefore as by the offence of one (Adam) unto all men to condemnation; so also by the justice of one (Christ) unto all men to justification of life. For, as by the disobedience of one man (Adam) many were made sinners, so also by the obedience of one (Christ) many shall be made just. (Rom. 5:18,19). These words make it plain that all men have inherited Adam's sin."[2]

Like many other Christian beliefs, the doctrine of the Inherited Sin also finds no support in the words of Jesus or of the prophets who had come before him. They taught that every man was accountable for his own actions; the children will not be punished for the sin of their father. For instance, it is written in the Book of prophet Jeremiah:

"In those days they shall say no more, the fathers have eaten a sour grape, and the children's teeth are set on edge. But everyone shall die for his own iniquity, every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge."[3]

The prophet Ezekiel also rejected the dogma of the Original Sin in almost the same words:

"The word of the Lord came unto me again, saying, what mean ye, that ye use this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying, the fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge. As I live, saith the Lord God, ye shall not have occasion any more to use this proverb in Israel. Behold, all souls are mine, as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine; the soul that sinneth, it shall die. But if a man be just, and do that which is lawful and right, and hath not eaten upon the mountains, neither hath lifted up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, neither hath defiled his neighbor's wife, neither hath come near to a menstruous woman, and hath not oppressed any, but hath restored to the debtor his pledge, hath spoiled none by violence, hath given his bread to the hungry, and hath covered the naked with garment, he that hath not given forth on usury, neither hath taken any increase, that hath withdrawn his hand from iniquity, hath executed true judgment between man and man, hath walked in My Statutes, and hath kept My Judgments, to deal truly; he is just, he shall surely live, saith the Lord God... The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father: neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all My Statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die."[4]

That Jesus himself regarded children as innocent and pure, and not as born in sin, is clear in his reported saying:

"Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not, for of such is the Kingdom of God. Verily, I say unto you whosoever shall not receive the Kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein"

(Mark 10:14,15)

Islam condemns the dogma of the Original Sin and regards the children as pure and sinless at birth. Sin, it says, is not inherited, but it is something which each one acquires for himself by doing what he should not do and not doing what he should do.

Rationally considered also, it would be the height of injustice to condemn the entire human race for the sin committed thousands of years ago by the first parents. Sin is a willful transgression of the Law of God or the law of right and wrong. The responsibility or blame for it must lie only on the person who has committed it, and not on his children.

Man is born with a free will, with the inclination and the capacity both to do evil and also to fight against it and do good. It is only when, as a grown-up man, capable of distinguishing between right and wrong, he makes a wrong use of his freedom and falls a prey to temptation, that sin is born in him. That many men and women have resisted and conquered evil inclinations and lived their lives in harmony with the Will of God is clear from the sacred records of all nations. The Bible itself mentions Enoch, Noah, Jacob, John the Baptist, and many others as being perfect and upright and among those who feared God and eschewed evil.

It is the height of misanthropy and cynicism to consider children to be sinful at birth. How unreasonable and hardhearted a man can become by believing in the dogma of the Inherent Sin

shown by the theological dictum of St. Augustine that all unbaptised infants are doomed to burn eternally in the fire of Hell. Till recently, the unbaptised infants were not buried in consecrated grounds in Christendom, because they were believed to have died in the Original Sin.

The very basis of the doctrine of the Atonement, that is the belief in the Original Sin, having been found to be wrong on the authority of Jesus Christ as well as reason, the superstructure of dogma built on it must also be false. But let us consider the Christian scheme of salvation a little further.

[1]Cf. God's Plan For Your Salvation, Phoenix Arizona, U.S.A.

[2]Rev. J. F. De Groot, Catholic Teaching, p.l40.

[3][3]The Bible, Jeremiah, 31:29-30.

[4]The Bible, Ezekiel, is; 1-9, 20-21 .


IslamBasics

Why Do Christians Believe in Original Sin?

 "Original Sin" is Confusing and Problematic


The concept of Original Sin is indeed amongst one of the most problematic in Christian theology. Not only is it NOT found in the Old Testament but Jesus never taught this foreign belief either. The suspicious origin of this belief is further highlighted by parts of the Bible which seem to be contradicting the Original Sin concept – amazing!

This post will consist of two parts; firstly a short video by BeholderGuard highlighting the passages in the Bible which seem to counter the concept of Original Sin, and secondly the Bible verses in question will be quoted and commentary added as well as further discussion being put forward in order to help the reader to realise the concept of Original Sin is not one taught by God, Jesus or any Old Testament Prophet (it is taught by a man who never met Jesus, named Paul)

Why is the Original Sin not in Genesis?

You would expect an author who believes in the Original Sin to make mention of it when referring to the results of Adam’s sin; in the Bible this would be in Genesis (Genesis chapter 3). However, this belief of Original sin is not only absent in Genesis but the entire Old Testament fails to mention it, thus the Prophets never taught this foreign belief (the same applies to Prophet Jesus)

Is the Original Sin concept Biblical?

It is neither in the Old Testament nor in the Gospel accounts. Paul introduces this concept in Romans:

Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned Romans 5:12 (also see 1 Cor. 15:22 and Rom. 5:17-19).

So is it Biblical? It depends on your definition of "Biblical". If you allow the teachings of Paul to be included in the Bible then the concept of Original Sin is indeed Biblical (albeit somewhat contradictory to earlier portions of the Bible). If you disregard Paul’s teachings then the concept of Original Sin is unbiblical. It is a very taxing conundrum the Christian is facing. The Old Testament certainly offers Paul no help but piles on the misery by militating against the belief in question

The Old Testament Contradicts Paul’s concept of Original Sin

As BeholderGuard mentions; Ezekiel 18 is key in this regard.

For every living soul belongs to me, the father as well as the son--both alike belong to me. The soul who sins is the one who will die Ezekiel 18:4

Also:

The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him. Ezekiel 18:20

Ezekiel 18 clearly shows each individual is responsible for their own sin. Surely the foreign belief of Original Sin is confusing in the light of Ezekiel 18.

2 Kings refutes the idea sin is passed onto posterity

Yet he did not put the sons of the assassins to death, in accordance with what is written in the Book of the Law of Moses where the LORD commanded: "Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sins." 2 Kings 14:6

Clearly dying for your own sins indicates you are not responsible or lumbered with your forefather’s sin. Again, the question is asked; if God really wanted us to believe in Original Sin then why have this verse and Ezekiel 18 in the Bible?

A departure from the Bible: Original Sin is problematic as it seems unfair

Why should an innocent baby be born with Original Sin? Christians do believe all are unclean (including babies), Saint Augustine:

No one is clean, not even if his life be only for a day (A dictionary from Biblical tradition in English literature, p.577)

Jesus Refutes Paul’s idea of Original Sin?

However, things get even more confusing as Paul’s belief is shot down by Jesus himself; Jesus intimates children are innocent:

Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these." Matthew 19:14 (also view Mark 10:14 and Luke 18:16)

Conclusion

The Original Sin is amongst the most problematic beliefs a Christian adopts – it is clearly a product from Paul’s devices. The Christian is left with the dilemma of why did Jesus never teach such a doctrine and why does he appear to contradict Paul.

Islam frees you from such a headache

“Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free”

  incarnation

Further Reading: Misha’al Ibn Abdullah’s What Did Jesus Really Say?

Forgiveness

Addendum

Does Psalm 51:5 teach the Original Sin?

No.
We have already seen Old Testament Biblical passages which militate against the idea of Original Sin. However, a commentator did bring up Psalm 51:5 as an Old Testament verse to support the idea of the Original Sin. Here is the ESV translation of the said verse:

Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.

As you can see for yourself, this verse is not teaching the Original Sin, it seems to be about the sinful act of adultery yielding a child; the Psalm is thought to be a projection upon the future child of an adulterous relationship.

However, the NIV translation does seem to teach a branch of the Original Sin (i.e. babies are with sin):

Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.

So which translation is correct?

Firstly, if the NIV translation (the one teaching Original Sin) is correct then the Bible-believing Christians will have contradictions on their hands. The verses mentioned in the opening article on the topic of Original Sin (Ezekiel 8:4 and 20, 2 Kings 14:6) would be deemed as contradicting Psalm 51:5, thus further discrediting the Bible.

However, in my research of Psalm 51:5 I have found three more verses (from the OT) which seem to refute the idea of Original Sin. The first two go together(Jeremiah 3:25 and Genesis 8:21); they appear to indicate a human only becomes sinful from his/her youth, i.e. at the time of discernment between right and wrong (good and evil). In fact Jeremiah 3:25 indicates humans sin from their youth onwards, thus the idea of Original Sin upon babies seems to be in real question here.

This age of discernment between good and evil appears to be mentioned in Isaiah 7:15-16 as well.

See appendix one for these three Bible verses in full.

Going back to Psalm 51:5, which translation is correct?

The NIV translation seems to be in error and appears to be unfaithful as the NASB, ESV and KJV all disagree with the NIV translation. The three aforementioned translations all indicate the child was conceived in sin UNLIKE the NIV which suggests the child was sinful at the time of birth.

New American Standard Bible (NASB):

Behold, I was (A)brought forth in iniquity,And in sin my mother conceived me.

King James Version (KJV):

Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me

English Standard Version (ESV):

Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.

So there is NO teaching of Original Sin in this verse! The verse is concerning the sin of adultery; it does not mean the child is born with sin. In fact the verse does not make mention of Adam's sin.

Commentary on Psalm 51:5 refutes the Original Sin

This verse has already been explained by T.W Brents and the explanation denounces the idea of Original Sin:

Whatever may be the meaning of this passage, it can not be the imputation of sin to the child. ‘In sin did my mother conceive me:’ that is, she acted wickedly when I was conceived. Were the wife to say, ‘In drunkenness my husband beat me,’or the child that ‘in anger my father whipped me,’ surely no one would attribute drunkenness to the wife or anger to the child; neither can they impute the sin of the mother to the child (1957, 133, 134).
(Sourced from: http://www.christiancourier.com/arti...pplied-passage)

So is the Original Sin mentioned in the Old Testament?

No, the idea of Original Sin seems to be shunned and denounced by the Old Testament authors. We have already realised that Jesus never taught the concept of Original Sin and moreover we see the Gospel accounts (Matthew 19:14 (also view Mark 10:14 and Luke 18:16) indicate Jesus considered children as innocent (thus refuting Original Sin).

As previously mentioned, the foreign concept of Original Sin first came into existence by a man named Paul. He seems to be contradicting the Old Testament as well as Jesus.

Is the Original Sin moral?

The moral dilemma continues for the Christian who believes in the Original Sin. Why are babies born with sin and thought to be hell-bound if unbaptized? St Augustine was a strong advocate for this idea of Original Sin:

In truth, all men who are sullied by the original sin were born of Adam and Eve [Augustine, vol 2, p 633].

Thus St Augustine believed babies were born with sin, is this just? Furthermore Augustine believed unbaptized babies went to hell:

Augustine believed that the only definitive destinations of souls are heaven and hell. He concluded that unbaptized infants go to hell as a consequence of original sin [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_sin] 

Appendix 1

The three new Bible verses which appear to militate against the idea of Original Sin:

Jeremiah 3:25 (English Standard Version)

25(A) Let us lie down in our shame, and let our dishonor cover us. For(B) we have sinned against the LORD our God, we and our fathers, from our youth even to this day, and we have not obeyed the voice of the LORD our God."

Genesis 8:21 (English Standard Version)

21And when the LORD smelled(A) the pleasing aroma, the LORD said in his heart, "I will never again(B) curse[a] the ground because of man, for(C) the intention of man’s heart is evil from his youth.(D) Neither will I ever again strike down every living creature as I have done.

Isaiah 7:15-16 (English Standard Version)

15He shall eat(A) curds and honey when he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good. 16(B) For before the boy knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land whose two kings you dread will be(C) deserted

Original Sin, Redemption, & Divinity of Christ

By: Mushfiqur Rahman

Original Sin, Redemption, & Divinity of Christ

Original Sin
There is no "original sin" in Islam. First of all, it is true that Adam and Eve committed sin by disobeying God. But they were both forgiven by God. Secondly, one man's action cannot be the burden of another man. Every individual is responsible only for his or her actions. Thus, every child is born pure and sinless. The world he sets foot in is also seen as a positive ground for him to cultivate. Not only is he born without sin, but also he is born actually with a set of positive things to help him in his cultivation of the world: 1) God places love and mercy in the hearts of his parents who would nurture him and take care of him until he is grown up 2) He is given by God a array of fine tools that he can utilize in fulfilling his role on earth: knowledge, wisdom, intellect, conscience, logical deduction, etc. The world, further, is not seen as something evil; rather it is seen as a positive field that is ready for him to cultivate. Thus, in Islam, every child is born with a positive start who sets foot in a positive world. This is, of course, a major doctrinal difference between Islam and Christianity. That can be explained in light of the historical development of the Christian doctrines and the Church during the first few centuries after Jesus (pbuh). For example, the theory of the original sin was developed by St. Paul, and not by Jesus.

Divine Redemption
Just like a child is not responsible for the actions of another person, so his sins cannot be also redeemed by another person. Just as sins cannot be transferred, so cannot be the credits. Every individual is an independent person who is responsible for his or her actions alone. There is no salvation, for there is no original burden. One's success in the Hereafter lies in his living a righteous life in this world. Faith is important, but faith without deeds will not earn him any good. My purpose here is to only explain what Islam is and not discuss the doctrinal development of Christianity. But it would be relevant here to mention that the theory of divine redemption (that Christ died for our sins) like the theory of original sin was also developed by St. Paul. Both of these theories go together. Because there was an original sin, now there was a need for redemption. The later, then, called for the divinity of Christ. With this, I will now answer some of your questions.

Question 1: Is Allah the Same as the Christian God?
As I have mentioned in my previous email, Allah is the same universal God who created the universe and Who is worshipped by all Jews, Christians, Muslims, and other faith communities. I have also mentioned some of His attributes in my email. Where you come across any specific difference, whether in attribute or in understanding, then I can specifically discuss that topic if you write to me about it. The rest of the issues come from assumptions that are simply not correct. In saying so, I am blaming those who may have conveyed such ideas to you. That is why I mentioned previously that one should undertake an objective study without any preconceived notions. Anyway, to answer your questions, Muhammad (p) did not claim that "Allah" is a greater god than the god believed by Jews and Christian. He is the same God. Neither did he choose one of the 360 gods to come up with the "greatest" god. This assumption is the basis of most of your questions; therefore, it suffices here to say that the assumption is incorrect. Why Jews and Christians do not accept Muhammad can be explained by the same reason as why Jews do not accept Jesus. Jesus (p) did not bring any new message but spoke of the same eternal message of God to the humanity: believing in God, living a righteous life, Day of Judgment, accountability of actions, and so on. This message was the same as preached by the previous prophets, but its spirit was lost. Thus Jesus came as a renewer of the message of God. He was, of course, rejected by the Jews. Identical case is with Muhammad (p). He came as a reformer like Jesus (p) with the same message but was rejected by the Jews and the Christians.

Question 2: Did Prophet Muhammad Receive Inspiration From the Same Source?
The answer to your question is "Yes". All prophetic inspirations come from the same source - God Almighty. And all prophets speak the truth. The "test" of a prophet can be made by an objective study of the message he preaches and his life as a prophet. The message should be consistent with the message preached by all other prophets. It should be clarified here that the job of a prophet is not to mere make prophecies about future events. Rather, it is to re-energize the message of God to the humanity and provide them guidance so that they can live a righteous life according to the will of God. That is why "messenger" would be a more appropriate word than "prophet".

Question 3: Prophecies about the Coming of Jesus
Stating first that my purpose is not to hurt one's religious belief, I would like to say, as a student of history, and purely from historical perspective, that the Old Testament books are not considered 100% authentic historical documents. It is an established fact that these books were written over a period of 800 years by different authors at different times. They were compiled from oral traditions that were passed from generations to generations. Textual changes depending on the understanding of the scribes were common. Commentaries made by different scribes would later be considered by future generations to be part of the text. At occasions books or parts of books would be lost, requiring re-creations as in the case of the Torah which was lost when Jerusalem was burned down in the 6th century BC. Thus from the point of view of neutral history, God's message in the OT books has been mixed with the cultural elements of the Israelite traditions. This can be verified by studying the history of the Old Testament. Thus, a Muslim considers that the OT books do contain God's message but it also contains cultural traditions that are not God's message. Muslims neither reject the OT books completely, nor accept them with the understanding that they contain God's words 100%. Now let us come back to the question of the prophecies mentioned in the OT. If there is any prophecy about the coming of Jesus, well and good. Muslims certainly believe in Jesus as a prophet of God. But if one considers himself fair-minded and takes on an objective analysis of the OT prophecies and gives Jesus and Muhammad equal rights under objective study without discounting one or the other under a pre-conceived mind, one will find that there are also prophecies in OT that point to Muhammad. If you are sincerely interested in this topic, then you can borrow a book from me the title of which is "Muhammad in the Bible" (it was written by a Christian scholar named Rev. David Keldani who accepted Islam). Having said this, I would like to ask you: do you think these "600 prophecies" you mentioned exclusively point to Jesus and not to any other historical person? If your answer is yes and if you think that you have come to that conclusion after making an objective study of these prophecies without discounting one person or another or giving preference to one person or another, then perhaps we can freely and openly discuss your analysis. There is one thing that I can guarantee you about myself: you will find me, God willing, an unbiased person.

Divinity Of Christ
You have mentioned that the Gospels of Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John clearly points to the divinity of Christ. This may be the belief, but I am sorry that this is not based on facts. If divinity of Jesus is the central theme of Christianity, they the gospels should clearly establish that fact. Jesus should clearly and repeatedly say in the gospels that he is divine, that he is one of the 3 gods, that people should worship him as god. But that is not to be found in the gospels, contrary to what an ordinary Christian would believe. You will not find the word "Trinity" anywhere in the 4 gospels, although it is a fundamental theme of Christianity. If it is of any interest to you, then perhaps you can undertake a study of the early Christianity and see how the Christian doctrines and the early church was developed. If the fairness of the Muslims' claims are questioned, then one can read books written by Christian historians themselves. If you like to engage with me in discussion about the early history of Christianity, then I would be happy to. Here, I would simply mention that the divinity of Christ was established by the church not prior to the 4th century. It was only then the current four gospels were accepted as canonical and all the other gospels available were destroyed. That council is called the "Council of Nicea" which was held in 325 AD. It was called for by the emperor Constantine to settle disputes that was sweeping the Christian world about whether Jesus was god or whether he was man. Obviously, many of the gospels that were destroyed portrayed Jesus to be man. The divinity of Jesus and the concept of the Trinity not only sets Christianity apart from Islam but from the teachings of the Old Testament as well where all prophets preached pure monotheism. I am sure you will find my statement difficult to accept, but there is a substantial difference between the Christianity that Jesus (p) preached and the Christianity that is known today. This is not just what Muslims claim, but this is what western scholars of history tell us as well. These are all later developments that have been attributed to Jesus, corrupting, unfortunately his pure message. And there is one person who can be credited for this more than any other: St. Paul. Indeed, according to some, St. Paul should be considered the real founder of Christianity, not Jesus:

"Paul's influence on Christian theology has been incalculable. His ideas include the following: Jesus was not merely an inspired human prophet, but was actually divine. Christ died for our sins, and his suffering can redeem us. Man cannot achieve salvation by attempting to conform to biblical injunctions, but only by accepting Christ; conversely, if one accepts Christ, his sins will be forgiven. Paul also enunciated the doctrine of original sin. .. Indeed, the influence of Paul's ideal has been so great that some scholars have claimed that he, rather than Jesus, should be regarded as the principal founder of the Christian religion." - Michael H. Hart, "The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History", New York, 1978.

Any person who sincerely and objectively undertakes the study of the development of Christianity will not only find that the actual message of Jesus has been lost by doctrines developed by others but will also find, if his study of Islam has also been objective, that Islam actually has restored the true image of Jesus, which is: he was a human being and a messenger of God who he preached God's unity and invited people to obey God.
This email brings about some of the doctrinal differences between Islam and Christianity. In doing so, it was not my intent to hurt one's religious feelings nor was it my desire to emphasis on dissimilarities. They only came up as I had to address some of your questions. But I would like to emphasis here that I have not tried to propagate my faith here but tried to remain objective by relying on neutral history in discussing some of the doctrinal issues.

Original Sin does not exist!

 The root of Christianity is the original sin upon which the crucifixion is justified and used for the benefit of Christians. If original sin is thrown away, then the crucifixion becomes dead.

None of these two man-made beliefs are true and original sin is nowhere to be found in the entire Bible.

Gen. 3:14
"And the Lord God said unto the serpent, 'Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life'".

This is a curse upon the serpent and that too only a worldly one.

Ezek 18:4
Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.

Ezek 18:20
The soul that sinneth, it shall die.

(Deuteronomy 24:16)
“The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.”

The Bible is very clear that no person will be responsible for the sins of others. Each person is answerable for himself alone and cannot blame it on Adam and Eve.

This concept matches exactly the Qur’anic point on this issue.

(Quran 6:164)
“No person earns any (sin) except against himself (only), and no bearer of burdens shall bear the burden of another.”


Some contradictory verses do exist in the Bible which Christians use to defend this man-made concept of original sin. If we take a closer look at these verses, we see that they too do not talk about the original sin the way Christian believe it to be.

For example:

Gen 3:17
And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed [is] the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat [of] it all the days of thy life;

Gen 3:18
Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;

Gen 3:19
In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou [art], and unto dust shalt thou return.


These verses might appear to be about the original sin but if we read them carefully, we see that they only talk about worldly punishments and nothing more.

Where in the Bible is it written that man is destined to eternal damnation for the inherited sin?

Where does the Bible say that the sole or main purpose of Jesus was to undo what Adam had done?

John 1:29
The next day John sees Jesus coming unto him, and says, Behold the Lamb of God, which takes away the sin of the world.

Prophets are sent by God to be examples of the message they have brought. Prophets are sent to bring mankind on the right path and to lead them away from a sinful life. Therefore, Jesus takes away the sins of the people by guiding them and showing them the right path. Secondly, Jesus never says such a thing, it is John who does so.
Rom. 5:12
"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:"
Rom. 5:19
"For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners,..."
These verses say that due to the sin of Adam, death arises. Not eternal death but death in the world. This is the appropriate interpretation; otherwise, there is a contradiction with the following verses:
Jer. 31:29-30
"In those days they shall say no more, The fathers have eaten a sour grape, and the children's teeth are set on edge. But every one shall die for his own iniquity: every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge."
Ezek 18:4
Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.

Ezek 18:20
The soul that sinneth, it shall die.
(Deuteronomy 24:16)
“The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.”

The death being talked about is the death in this world and not punishment in hell.
Prov.20:9
"Who can say, I have made my heart clean, I am pure from my sin?"
The way to cleanse oneself from sin to clean one’s heart and not to believe in crucifixion or Trinity.
Psalms 51:5
Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.
The above verse needs to be seen in context to be understood fully.
51:1
Chief Musician, A Psalm of David, when Nathan the prophet came unto him, after he had gone in to Bathsheba. Have mercy upon me, O God, according to thy lovingkindness: according unto the multitude of thy tender mercies blot out my transgressions.

51:2
Wash me thoroughly from mine iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin.

51:3
For I acknowledge my transgressions: and my sin ever before me.

51:4
Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done [this] evil in thy sight: that thou mightest be justified when thou speakest, [and] be clear when thou judgest.

51:5
Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

If we read in context, we see that the person saying these words is actually a sinner, see verse 3 and 5. This shows that this person was actually a sinner himself and talks about sins happened before him.
Nathan came from Aaron's wife who was a fourth generation bastard son of Judah, so her sons were fifth generation sons. As the bible says, God's law specifically banned bastards and their descendants from entering the assembly of Yahweh for at least ten generations(Dt. 23:2).
According to the bible, David was a ninth generation bastard. David was the 9th generation son of Perez, the bastard son of Judah and Tamar.
His lineage is shadowed and shameful: his father descended from Moab, a product of incest between Lot and his daughter after Sodom's destruction, down through Ruth, a Moabite convert.

David was believed to be bastard by his father and brothers. Such allegations have been made against Prophet David.
I was shapen in inequity can be taken as two meanings, first that when he was in his mother's belly and was being taken a shape and the second is his growing up days.
Whichever way you take it, the sin being talked about is personal and not hereditary.
If you take,
I was shapen in iniquity

as growing up days, even then these sins are personal. King David is accused of deceit, adultery and murder in the Bible.
It is surprising that such a huge concept of Christians, 'Original Sin' has no mention in the bible.

Source

The Mosaic Law, Original Sin and Blood Atonement

 By Issa Ahmad Khalid

 

Christianity teaches that Jesus(as) died for the sins of mankind; the sins of the past, present and future. It is this teaching that prevails in Christianity today and is the marketing tool of all Christian missionaries. It is the foundation stone of every church, regardless of its being Catholic, Protestant, Baptist, Methodist or any of the other denominational sects. Every “good” Christian believes that their sins are forgiven by the blessed name and blood of Jesus(as). The problem with this however is that this is contrary to not only the teachings of Prophet Jesus(as), but to the teachings of The Holy Bible itself. Even the idea put forth by the Christians that all children are born with the black stain of sin runs contrary to this event in the ministry of Prophet Jesus(as);

 

“Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not; for of such is the Kingdom of God…Verily I say unto you, whosoever shall not receive the Kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein.”   Mark 10:14-15

 

Now if the idea of all children being born with the black stain of sin was among the many teachings of Prophet Jesus(as), then this statement would have never been made by him considering that Christians believe that unless a child be baptized in the name of Jesus(as), that child could never inherit the Kingdom of Heaven, but rather suffer the doom of hellfire and damnation. Any belief that Christians have in regards to a child being born in sin is refuted by the above words of Prophet Jesus(as). He makes it clear that unless you are as “innocent” as a child, you can never inherit the Kingdom of Heaven.

 

Now the Christian hinges this belief on the words spoken by Paul with respect to Jesus(as) redeeming the world from its sin;

 

“For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures.”   1 Corinthians 15:3

 

According to this passage, Paul is claiming that this ideology is supported by the scriptures, and in this case he is making reference to the Hebrew Scriptures, or The Tanach. However, one will find that this idea of an innocent man, in this case Jesus(as), having to pay for the sins of others is nowhere to be found in the Hebrew Bible. In actuality, it is the exact opposite that is found in the Hebrew Scriptures;

 

“The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son; the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. “But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statuses and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die. All his transgressions that he hath committed, they shall not be mentioned unto him; in his righteousness that he hath done, he shall live.”   Ezekiel 18:20-22

 

Without question, this passage runs in direct contrast with what we find in the teachings of Paul, and it also proves that Paul’s claim that his teachings are in accordance with the scriptures is false. The spilling of innocent blood for the redemption of mankind is a belief that has its roots in paganism (which is covered elsewhere in this book) and was adopted into Christianity by Paul and solidified as dogma at the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D. Blood atonement was never a teaching of Prophet Jesus(as), nor did he ever make mention of it. Far be it for a messenger of Almighty God to indulge in pagan practices and beliefs. Paul introduced this pagan concept into Christianity, thanks in large part to his Nicolation background. With such rhetoric as;

 

“For we walk by faith, not by sight.”   2 Corinthians 5:7

 

Is it any wonder that Christians have become indoctrinated with this pagan belief in blood atonement and original sin? This is a fundamental belief of the Christian faith which is imbedded into the beliefs of all Christians from baptism to last rites. St. Thomas Aquinas propagated this ideology to the fullest, as is evident from Aquinas, Vol.1, Pg. 714;

 

 

 

          “But this sacrifice of Jesus is only for that person who has faith in Jesus, and who acts on his teachings. The sign of such faith is the fulfillment of the ritual baptism. The undergoing of baptism signifies faith in the redemption of Jesus on the part of the baptized. Hence, being baptized through Jesus is deemed to take the place of his death and second life. Consequently, whoever undergoes baptism will have his original sin forgiven, and he will be given a new free will. On the other hand, that person who does not undergo baptism, his original sin remains with the result that he becomes entitled to perpetual sin. But original sin incurs everlasting punishment; since children who have died in original sin, because they have not been baptized, will never see the Kingdom of God.”

 

This ideology was further driven home by Martin Luther, who was the father of the Protestant Reformation;

 

“Only believe and you will be redeemed. There is no necessity to bear the hardships of good acts like fasting, abstinence from sins and humility of confession, be sure that without them and only for your true faith in Christ, you shall certainly get salvation of Christ. No matter if you get involved in fornication and murder a thousand times a day, you are destined to reach salvation only for your true belief. I repeat, only your belief will get you redeemed.”

 

It is very easy to see how one can become conditioned to believe such nonsense when it is constantly fed into your head continually, never mind that the words of Aquinas on failure to be baptized will result in eternal hellfire, or those of Martin Luther encouraging the breaking of the 6^th and 7^th commandments. That is the outcome of indoctrination, and it is the main stumbling block in trying to explain the truth to those who have been led to believe as they have. Any notion that Aquinas put forth with regards to un-baptized children never seeing the Kingdom of God has resulted in much heartache throughout the ages from distraught parents dealing with the death of their un-baptized children, and it is quite clear that this ideology is in direct contrast with the words spoken by Prophet Jesus(as) in Mark 10:14-15. These doctrines were the brainchild of St. Paul, who first put forth these ideas in his letter to the Galatians, and it is he that is the sole person responsible for spreading such nonsense in the early days of the Christian Church, to which it gained further ground centuries later in the Roman Byzantine Empire. I will discuss Paul more in depth in part 7 of this chapter. I would like to point out, however, that I have no wish to engage in character assassination with respect to Paul as that is not the purpose of this book; my only wish is to clarify the true teachings of Prophet Jesus(as). Only Paul himself and Almighty God knew what motivated him to preach such nonsense, however, it is possible to take a peek at what may have driven him to do as he did; from being perhaps the most adamant opponent of the followers of Prophet Jesus(as), to being the man that would be responsible for distorting the pure teachings of Jesus(as) and leading many astray for over 2000 years. The following is an excerpt from the book “The Age of Reason” by Thomas Paine, page 167:

 

“The Ebionites, or Nazarenes, who were the first Christians, rejected all the Epistles of Paul and regarded him as an imposter. They reported, among other things, that he was originally a pagan; that he came to Jerusalem where he lived some time; and that having a mind to marry the daughter of a high priest, he caused himself to be circumcised. But, that not being able to obtain her, he quarreled with the Jews and wrote against circumcision, and against observing the Sabbath and against all the legal ordinance.”

 

 

From this one could easily make an argument that Paul’s ambition was not to preach the Gospel of Jesus(as), rather he had his own personal agenda, that being a vendetta against the Jews for not allowing him to marry one of their own. However, that is mere speculation and as such I will not draw a conclusion on that. It was, however, a note of some interest, along with Paul being called a “deceiver” on chapter 222 of the Gospel of Barnabas. This brings to mind the words spoken by Prophet Jesus(as);

 

“Beware of false prophets which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly, they are ravening wolves…Ye shall know them by their fruits.”   Matthew 7:15-16

 

Again, I have no interest in speaking against the character of Paul, but it is a known fact that his teachings contradict every teaching of Prophet Jesus(as) and without question he fits the mold of the “false prophet” Jesus(as) made reference to. Although popular opinion is that Paul himself was Jewish, however, it should be noted that only those of the Tribe of Judah can be called Jewish, and all else are called by their respective tribes. I covered this topic extensively in my book; Rational Thinking And Misconceptions Cleared, and considering that Paul was of the Tribe of Benjamin (see Philippians 3:5), to call him Jewish would be incorrect. All that aside, the Bible is quite clear on the issue of sins being forgiven at the spilling of blood;

 

“To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifice unto Me?, saith the Lord. I am full of burnt offerings of rams and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks or of lamb or of he-goats.”   Isaiah 1:11

 

 

The Holy Bible actually makes it quite clear that forgiveness from sins comes from one’s sincerity in seeking forgiveness from Almighty God and from obedience to Him;

 

“Will I eat the flesh of bulls, or drink the blood of goats?  Offer unto God thanksgiving; and pay thy vows unto the most High”  Psalms 50:13-14

“I desired not sacrifices; I commanded not your fathers, when I stretched forth my hand to bring them out of Egypt, to offer burnt -- offerings to me, but only to obey my voice.”   Jeremiah 7:21-22

And as for the innocent being made to pay for the sins of others, the Bible is also quite clear in that respect as well;

 

“And it came to pass on the morrow, that Moses said unto the people, ‘Ye have sinned a great sin: and now I will go up unto the LORD; peradventure I shall make an atonement for your sin.’ And Moses returned unto the LORD, and said, ‘Oh, this people have sinned a great sin, and have made them gods of gold. Yet now, if Thou wilt forgive their sin--; and if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of Thy book which Thou hast written.’ And the LORD said unto Moses, ‘Whosoever hath sinned against Me, him will I blot out of My book.’”   Exodus 32:30-33

 

And from the words of Prophet Jesus(as) one can also conclude that his true teachings where in perfect harmony with these mentioned passages;

 

“For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed [the righteousness] of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.”   Matthew 5:20

 

“For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.”  

Matthew 6:14-15

 

So many examples can be used from the Bible that one is hard pressed in understanding how a Christian can claim to adhere to the Bible, and yet follow a totally opposite course. Here is yet further examples of what the Bible says;

 

“The fathers shall not be put to death for the children; neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.”

Deuteronomy 24:16

 

“But the children of the murderers he put not to death; according to that which is written in the book of the law of Moses, as the Lord commanded, saying, ‘The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, nor the children be put to death for the fathers; but every man shall die for his own sin.’”   2 Kings 14:6

 

“But every one shall die for his own iniquity: every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge.”   Jeremiah 31:30

 

Again, the Bible states clearly how salvation can be achieved;

 

“If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.”   2 Chronicles 7:14

 

“Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the LORD, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.”   Isaiah 55:7

 

Now with respect to these Biblical passages, it is very clear indeed that the Paulanistic teachings of the Christian Church are in no way harmonious with the teachings of Prophet Jesus(as) and The Holy Bible itself; Paulanist statements such as;

 

“Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us; for it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree.’”   Galatians 3:13

 

How Paul can tie that passage in with Prophet Jesus(as) is a far stretch to say the least, as this passage is making reference to the accursed as being the enemies of Almighty God, and to even consider Prophet Jesus(as) as an enemy of Almighty God (Au’dhu-Billah) is to say that he was alienated from His Grace and this does absolutely no honour to this most mighty messenger of Almighty God. This is a serious offence and charge to levy against Prophet Jesus(as), and it does him no honour or respect. Jesus(as) made himself very clear as to what his mission entailed;

 

“Think not that I am come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these commandments and teach men to do so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven. For I say unto you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of Heaven.”    Matthew 5:17 – 20

And Jesus(as) also made it very clear how one could achieve salvation;

 

“And behold, one came and said unto him, ‘Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?’ And he said unto him, ‘Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.’ He saith unto him, ‘Which?’ Jesus said, ‘Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Honour thy father and [thy] mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.’”   Matthew 19:16-19

Jesus(as) preached the keeping of all the commandments, which number 613 as opposed to the Christian belief of only 10. Among these commandments, to which the Christians fall short of, is to refrain from alcohol (see Leviticus 10:9, Proverbs 20:1, Isaiah 5:22, Hosea 4:11 & Daniel 1:8), to avoid the flesh of swine (see Leviticus 11:8) and to abide by circumcision (see Genesis 17:10-14 & Luke 2:21). In no way did Prophet Jesus(as) ever cater to the pagan belief of original sin and blood atonement, and no better proof of that than his own words that we have just covered. Interestingly enough, with respect to what The Holy Bible states in regards to alcohol, we find within the Gospel of John a most insulting incident relating to Prophet Jesus(as) in that he turned water into wine so that party goers were able to have their fill of alcohol (see John 2:6-9), which runs in direct opposition of Almighty God’s command. In this story, Prophet Jesus(as) is also found treating his mother most disrespectfully (see also in Luke 8:19-21), which further opposes the commandments of Almighty God, specifically;...honour thy mother and thy father…. This is most unbecoming of a Prophet of Almighty God, and as such, as a Muslim that is, I refuse to acknowledge the authenticity of this story as should all Muslims and Christians for that matter. Prophet Jesus(as) himself stated clearly that he did not come to abolish the law, and as such to even consider Prophet Jesus(as) of being guilty of such acts does him no honour. It is very sad that the Gospel of John seems to apply the most disrespect to the good name and character of Prophet Jesus(as), even going so far as to label him a deceiver. For example; in John 7:8, Jesus(as) had informed his disciples that he would not be attending a feast, yet in the very same chapter, verse 10, it relates that Jesus(as) had indeed gone to the feast, but not openly, rather in secret. Most insulting indeed.

 

At this juncture it would very prudent if we devoted some time to whom Jesus(as) was sent to. True, Christians will always quote;

 

“Go ye therefore, and teach all nations…”   Matthew 28:19

 

“Jesus said to him, ‘I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through me’.”   John 14:6

 

This is in order to get their point across that Jesus(as) came to save all humanity, however, a closer look at the Gospels will reveal that such was not the case, and that the mission of Prophet Jesus(as) was limited to the Children of Israel only. The nations that Jesus(as) speaks of in Matthew 28:19, and the people he is addressing in John 14:6 in the Nation/Children of Israel as Jesus(as) himself attested to by his own words;

 

“These twelve Jesus sent out after instructing them: ‘Do not go in the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter any city of the Samaritan; but rather go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel’”.   Matthew 10:5-6

 

As a prophet of God, Jesus(as) was the way for his time and people, just like all prophets where.

Now if Jesus(as) was meant to save all humanity, why then would he order his Apostles to limit their ministry to the Children of Israel only? This is further proven by this event in the Gospel;

 

“But he answered and said, ‘I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.’ But she (the Canaanite woman) came and began to bow down before him, saying, ‘Lord, help me!’ And he(Jesus) answered and said, ‘It is not meet to take children’s bread and cast it to the dogs (non-Israelites).’”    Matthew 15:24-26 (see also Mark 7:26-27)

 

Jesus(as) by his own words made it clear that he was only sent for the Israelites and none else and his bold declaration cannot be ignored. His teachings where that of repentance, forgiveness and love to the Children of Israel only, and certainly not of blood atonement and original sin. The thought of an innocent man being made to pay for the sins of others is repulsive to say the least. Consider the following; A man being tried and convicted as guilty for a crime such as murder, rape or even child molestation. Any rational person would no doubt want such an offender to pay for his crimes. Now imagine a court of law, who in spite of finding this man guilty of these crimes, decides that an innocent person should be made to pay for these crimes in his blood instead of the guilty party. Imagine the uproar at the injustice served. No court of law would ever even consider such an act, of someone other than the criminal being made to pay for his crimes, whether voluntarily or involuntarily. This is exactly what the concept of blood atonement expects us to believe, and as much as we find it ludicrous to even cater to such an idea as I have mentioned above, in the case of Prophet Jesus(as) the Christians have done just that and laid the sins of others upon the good name and shoulders of Prophet Jesus(as), which runs contrary to not only rational thinking and common sense, but more importantly, to the very Bible the Christians cherish so much, as well as the true monotheistic teachings of Prophet Jesus(as). May Allah(swt) guide us, Insha’Allah.

What is the rationale behind the non-acceptance of the doctrine of original sin by Muslims?

http://www.islamcan.com/common-questions-about-islam/why-is-it-that-muslims-do-not-accept-the-doctrine-of-original-sin.shtml


The reason Muslims do not accept this doctrine is that the word of God, the Qur'an, does not agree with it. The Qur'an teaches that God is ever willing to forgive anyone who turns to him in sincere repentance. We find in the Qur'an that God taught Adam and Eve how to seek His forgiveness. When they did as God taught them, God forgave them (see Qur'an 20:122).

Adam and Eve were created with the potential to do either good or evil. They had a free choice either to obey God or disobey Him. They did not realize how deceptive the devil was, and so prompted by him, they made the wrong choice. Will God remain forever angry with them over that one mistake? No! Instead, God taught them how to repair their relationship with Him by praying for forgiveness. Muslims still often recite the same prayer, as follows:
Our Lord, we have wronged our souls. If you do not forgive us and have mercy on us, then surely we are lost (Qur'an 7:23).

What we obtain from that incident is not original sin, but original forgiveness, and an original lesson on how to seek that forgiveness. God set the precedent that He will forgive those who turn to Him in sincere repentance. We will all find ourselves in a similar situation as Adam and Eve. The prophet, on whom be peace, said that every child of Adam is a sinner, and the best of them are those who turn back to God in sincere repentance.

This shows that God does not demand absolute perfection from us humans. That would be an impossible demand, since God alone is absolutely perfect. To err is human. God wants us to know that he will accept us as we are, shortcomings and all, as long as we are trying our best to obey Him. Even in our human situations, it is well understood that absolute perfection is not to be demanded from anyone. Suppose teachers were to demand that all students must score 100% on all their tests, and that if they make even one mistake they will not pass. No one of sound mind will demand this, for it is clearly beyond human capacity. Similarly, God does not demand from people what is beyond their capacity (see Qur'an 2:226).

Some will say that Adam was created perfect and that when he sinned he ruined that perfection. This suggestion makes no sense. If perfection meant that Adam had no ability to choose between good and evil, then how did he exercise that choice which he supposedly did not have? And if he had the ability to choose, as Muslims believe, then why would God remain forever angry with him for his first mistake? Humankind was then in its infancy. We needed someone to pick us up when we fall, not someone to bulldoze us with a tremendous burden of sin and guilt.

Some will say that God could not forgive Adam even if He wanted to do so, since God is Just and He must exact justice. This is as if to say that justice is contrary to mercy, and that God is so fenced in by His own law that He has no freedom to do what He wants to do. How silly! The truth is that God warns us of His punishment, but He also promises forgiveness for those who sincerely repent. If He decides to save sinners, who is there to say He cannot do what He wishes?

Is death the consequence of sin?

 If there is no original sin, then why does everyone have to die? Isn't death the consequence of sin?

 IslamCan.com


Muslims have a very positive view of life and death. Life on earth is temporary. Death is the door through which one enters into everlasting life. Muslims do not see death as something scary or frightful. Death is the way one returns to Allah. God says in the Qur'an:
Say: The angel of death, who has been given charge of you, will carry off your souls. Then to your Lord you shall all return (Qur'an 32:11).

Muslims hopeful of God's mercy look forward to the day when God will address them as stated in the Qur'an:
O peaceful and fully satisfied soul, return to your Lord: you are well-pleased (with your good end) and well-pleasing (in the sight of your Lord). Join My (righteous) servants and enter my Paradise (Qur'an 89: 27-30).

Viewed in this way, death becomes a joy for the true believer. This view of death was further explained in a saying of the Prophet, on whom be peace. He said:
Allah loves to meet whoever loves to meet Him.

It is true that no one likes to die. But the prophet, on whom be peace, said:
When death comes to a believer, he is given good news of the pleasure of Allah and his gifts. There is then nothing dearer to him than what is ahead of him. So he loves to meet Allah, and Allah loves to meet him (This was reported by Bukhari and Muslim).

This positive view of death should not imply a negative view of life. Life should be lived to its fullest, and believers should not wish for an end to their lives. The prophet said; no believer should wish for death, for, as long as there is life in you, if you are righteous, perhaps you may increase your good deeds, and if you are sinful, perhaps given time you may repent (reported by Bukhari).

God in His plan devised this earthly life as a temporary life. The earth is a testing ground. Those who accept God's guidance in this life will be given the abundance of God's grace in the next, the everlasting life. When God decreed for humans to live on the earth, He declared:
Henceforth there shall come to you guidance from Me now and again; whoever will follow it shall have neither fear nor sorrow, and whoever will refuse to accept it and defy Our Revelation, they shall be doomed to the Fire wherein they shall remain forever (Qur'an 2:38-39).

Again, God says that He "created life and death so that He may try you, which of you is best in conduct" (Qur'an67:2).
God says further:
Indeed We created man from a mixed drop to try him and therefore We made him capable of hearing and seeing. We showed him the way, whether to be grateful or disbelieving (Qur'an 76:2-3; see also 90;8- 10).

In this life we should use our God-given faculties to learn and follow God's message. The Qur'an says that those who end up being punished for their sins will regret that they neither listened nor used their brains when God's message had reached them (see Qur'an 67:10).

Incidentally, in the Qur'an it is not said that God warned Adam and Eve of death if they ate from the forbidden tree. What God actually said to them was that if they ate from the tree they would become wrongdoers (see Qur'an 2:35). Given the Qur'anic viewpoint, there is no reason to consider death as a consequence for sin.