Tuesday, 26 October 2010

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)

BeholderGuard’s video presentation on the belief in Original Sin

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


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)


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”

Learn more about the incarnation here

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

Forgiveness: Islam and Christianity

Feedback: yahyasnow@hotmail.com

A video for Christians: Muslim Preaches the Truth of Islam
(please listen and take what is beneficial from this video)


Does Psalm 51:5 teach the Original Sin?

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/articles/276-original-sin-and-a-misapplied-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]

Islam frees you from the dilemma of original sin, please look into Islam:

The first article refuting the idea of Original Sin:

Recommended reading on Psalm 51:5:

Further reading:
What is Christianity by Taqi Uthmani (pg 35-43)

Feedback: yahyasnow@hotmail.com

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


Anonymous said...

frm sam

shamounian (4 days ago) Spam Marked as spam Hey folks, we have another foul mouthed dog named DrXoz barking over the fact that Christian apologists such as myself are completely humiliating and exposing Muslim liars and deceivers like Sami Zaatari and Yahya Snow, the coward who hides behind his blog but doesn't have the guts to debate his trash so that all could see what would happen to him for producing such garbage which he calls rebuttals! Sami, Yahya, and JibreelK, the cowardly convert, make a great comedy team. They are better than the 3 stooges!

Ali said...

sam's an idiot hands down. funny acts 17 supports him.

manny said...

if christians change to muslim then it is good 4 them

Anonymous said...

Sam is just jealous, because as a Christian does not follow cleansing procedures such as istinja, hence his booty smellls.. Sam, go away.. you smell

YFC777 said...

Quote from blog "It is neither in the Old Testament nor in the Gospel accounts."

Reply to the author of this blog

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

Yahya Snow said...


Nope, not quite.

The NIV translation of Psalm 51:5 is well known to be at odds with the others. See NASB, ESV and KJV...you will realise the other transaltions (mentioned) do not support the idea of original sin in the said verse. In fact, if you read the more accurate translations you realise the verse refers to the child being CONCEIVED in sin (this makes sense as the Psalm is thought to be talking about the sin of adultery)

So, the OT does not teach the original sin.

I have written an article on Psalm 51:5...please do review it when you have time:


I will try to append it to this article, God willing

I invite all to Islam

Peace and love

YFC777 said...

@Yahya Snow:

Firstly when you say "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" .. I hope you realize in this verse (Psalm 51:5) David is talking about himself and his own conception and not a future adulterous relationship. Neither is there any proof of his mother having such a relationship. Read the context of Psalm 55, below are extracts from Christian scholars on this verse.

1: Clarke's commentary - "I believe David to speak here of what is commonly called original sin; the propensity to evil which every man brings into the world with him, and which is the fruitful source whence all transgression proceeds."

2: Barnes commentary - "The idea is simply that he was "born" in iniquity; or that he was a sinner when he was born; or that his sin could be traced back to his very birth"

3: Gills commentary - "the earliness of the corruption of nature; it is as soon as man is conceived and shapen; and that it is propagated from one to another by natural generation; and that it is the case of all men: for if this was the case of David"

4: Keil and Delitzsch commentary - "David here confesses his hereditary sin as the root of his actual sin. The declaration moves backwards from his birth to conception, it consequently penetrates even to the most remote point of life's beginning"

YFC777 said...

@Maratsafin brought up the topic of do babies who die and are not baptized go to heaven. Yahya Show claims Islam frees you from the headache of original sin and has all the answers.

Well, read the below Hadits on this topic. Islam does not have the answer to this question as well.

Sahih Muslim, Book 32, Number 6435:

Narrated Aisha:

A child died and I said: There is happiness for this child who is a bird from amongst the birds of Paradise. Thereupon Allah's Apostle (peace_be_upon_him) said: Don't you know that Allah created the Paradise and He created the Hell and He created the dwellers for this (Paradise) and the denizens for this (Hell)?

When Aisha expresses her belief and expectation of happiness for the child that died, Muhammad disagrees and instead states that God has created some people for Hell. Obviously, this includes children, because that is the topic of the conversation.

Malik's Muwatta, Book 16, Number 16.16.53:

Narrated Abu Hurayrah:

The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, "Every child is born on the fitrah and it is his parents who make him a Jew or a Christian. Just as a camel is born whole - do you perceive any defect?" They said, "Messenger of Allah, what happens to people who die when they are (very) young?" He said, "Allah knows best what they used to do (or would have done)."

Yahya Snow said...


As for your insistence and support of the original sin doctrine.

Firstly, you are appealing to a faulty translation of the said verse. All the other translations I presented speak of being conceived in sin...that obviously refers to the sexual act which yielded the child (it was adulterous according to the CONTEXT)

Seen as we are discussing context, we can ask ourselves how JEWS understood this...do they believe in the OS? No. Clearly they do not view it to be supporting the OS doctrine.

I also showed you Brents explanation of the verse and he makes it quite clear it is NOT teahing OS.

Furthermore, and more importantly, Jesus, Ezekiel, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Book of Genesis and 2Kings ALL appear to reject the idea of OS.

So, yfc777, if you want to hold onto this new belief of Paul's based on a skewed understanding and translation of a VAGUE portion of the Bible (Psalm) as well as the undependable Paul then it is on your head. We are talking issues of salvation

I invite all to Islam and worship the Creator of Paul, Ezekiel, Jesus and all that exists.


Yahya Snow said...


Concerning Islam eliminated the problematic doctrine of OS...yes, Islam does eliminate it as it denounces the doctrine.

Babies are born sinless according to Islam, thus they do not have to undergo a baptism.

Babies are not thrown into hell based on a forefather's sin...but your ST Augustine and other early Christians were adamnt babies are hell-bound based on ADAM'S sin.

Here is what I wrote in a previous comment:

Muslims do not have the problem of original sin and nor do we send babies to hell based on Paul's idea of original sin. In fact we reject such a construct.

We do have a few opinions on the destiny of children though;one of which is that the children will be tested in the hereafter. Ihave uploaded a Sheikh's reply on the said matter, here is a snip:

That they will be tested in the Hereafter, and whoever obeys Allaah will enter Paradise, and whoever disobeys Him will enter Hell. This is the view of the majority of Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa’ah, as transmitted by Abu’l-Hasan al-Ash’ari, and it is the opinion of al-Bayhaqi and many other researchers

Here is the link:

Come to Islam today, my friend.


YFC777 said...

Yahya may I first ask you to clarify what is your understanding of original sin. You start the article by quoting verses and stating that this doctrine is no where in the OT or the Gospels even without telling the reader what you are refuting in the first place.

Original sin may be taken to mean: (1) the sin that Adam committed; (2) a consequence of this first sin, the hereditary stain with which we are born on account of our origin or descent from Adam.

From your posts I think you have misunderstood the doctrine of original sin as the sin's committed by one generation being passed on to the next. We believe that Adam's first sin is the one that is passed onto every generation. Adam by his fault transmitted to us not only death but also sin, "for as by the disobedience of one man many [i.e., all men] were made sinners" (Romans 5:19). Thus the verses you quoted from Ezekiel, 2 Kings and Matthew 19 are out of context and do not deal with the subject of OS.

You also stated that this is only a Christian concept and Jews do not believe in original sin. The concept of OS is mentioned in the fourth Book of Esdras. The below is taken from Jewish Encyclopedia (Not Christian website)

"The germ of evil sown into man by the first sin of Adam"

Read more: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=463&letter=E#ixzz13tR1d4r5

You quoted T.W Brents and provided a link, the site clearly states that there are three possibilities of the meaning of Psalm 51:5. What you pasted was one of the three possibilities. What you did not post from the site was this - "Most likely, however, Psalm 51:5 merely refers to the fact that David was born into a sinful environment. We all are conceived in and brought forth into a sinful world. But we do not actually sin until we arrive at a stage of spiritual responsibility." I also provided you with 4 other commentaries that support Psalm 51:5 refers to OS.