[oelequud]

I don't understand what you mean by that.

In your first comment, you said that general relativity predicted that an infinite amount of time would have passed since the initial singularity. But that is not true: If you apply general relativity to a (very simple) model of the universe, you get the Friedmann equations. You can then solve these equations and get a solution that depends on the parameters of your model (spatial curvature, cosmological constant, equation of state of the matter/energy content). You can then see that all such solutions which fit our observations of the universe (the universe is currently expanding and not all energy in the universe behaves like dark energy) have the property that there was a singularity a finite amount of t ago.

As always in general relativity, one has to determine what exactly "t" means. But luckily, for the Robertson-Walker metric, the answer to that is relatively simple: t is the proper time of particles that are at rest relative to the average matter content of the universe (of course up to arbitrary translations).

So the result is: General relativity predicts for a universe like ours, that for matter that was at rest relative to the rest of the matter in the universe, only a finite amount of time has passed since a singularity. Time does not slow down near the big bang.

Of course that doesn't mean that this is the whole and perfect truth. The very fact that GR predicts a singularity means that GR is incomplete; a singularity is simply not a valid prediction. A theory of quantum gravity is probably necessary to fix that. But I just wanted to correct the error in your first post.