It was not Eve`s fault.

[micreusa]

We have a tendency to blame the fall of man on Eve, when technically it was not her fault.
Adam was made in God`s image, and he walked with God, and had a spiritual connection.
God made woman to help Adam (woman means "of man")and it was Adam`s responsibility to teach her in the things of God.
When she was deceived by the serpent, man was not yet condemned.
It was when Adam took the apple from her and ate, rather than chastising her for her sin. Had he said no, she would have been forgiven and things would have been different.
But Adam chose his woman over his God, something of man, and that is why the fall came about.
It is for this reason God cannot bless a relationship that is based on fornication.If Gods blessing of matrimony is not on your relationship, you are suffering from the Adam syndrome.
I hope this helps someone.

In Christ,Michael

[DavidforHim]

Are you not doing the same thing they did by not saying it was or was not her fault. Lets just face it, we are all to blame.

[AngelAmidala]

Good point.

The first time I read it, I thought that it was nice to hear someone NOT totally blaming Eve. Every time I've read the Garden of Eden story, it just seems that people like to comment on how it was THE WOMAN'S fault.

But, thinking more about it, it was really both their faults.
They didn't think of God first. God told them not to eat the fruit. Eve forgot that, and listened to the snake. Adam forgot that, and listened to Eve. They both had the opportunity to say "NO!"

I guess that's why it's so important to remember that God comes first, even before your family. *shrugs*

[micreusa]

I stand corrected, but it does not change the fact that the end responsibility fell on Adam. Had he said no, things would not have turned out the way they did.

[DavidforHim]

Adam as a type of Christ became sin cause he loved Eve so much. He didnt have to eat the apple. But because he choose to, it shows his unlimited love for his wife. As Christ choose to die for us all, and how all men should love their wives.

[Haadam]

First Off. It was not any Apple they Ate! Second it was the Fruit of the Serpents Loins, They took into themselves. A Conception took place, (Gen. 3:15-16)!
THe Inward Beings Of Adam and Eve,(Their Souls) were Incarnated Angels numbering with God's Holy Two thirds Angels. God took a piece of flesh (Adams womb) and a Bone (the rib) and made the Woman (Womb-Man). The incarnated Angel that was Living in the seperated part of Adam's Literal Flesh and Bone, who was Called Eve. Sinned because Adams FLESH was weak and failed them Both. When Eve Concieved with Child from the Serpent, (who's name was called CAIN) Adam also was seen as Biting the "SO called Apple", because it was His own flesh Womb which Eve was in Control over, that Ate,(took into one's self) the forbidden Fruit,( The serpents "SEED")! So ADAM's Flesh was WEAK, Both Angels that had been Incarnated into the Earth CAlled Flesh, Suffered because of the Flesh that was found to be weak. Jesus Later at Calvary Redeemed the Angels, by living a Perfect Life in the Flesh Body. THe first Adam became LAST and the Last ADAM became FIRST. THat Last ADAM was JESUS THE CHRIST.
LOve in Jesus Name Haadam

[DavidforHim]

I dont know where you got that but you are going to have to back that theory up with some serious material before anyone will be buying into it. I take my Bible literaly, as did all the people in the Bible It was a fruit from a real tree, Adam and Eve are human like you and i, we cannot prove what happend either way.

[NazGirl]

Adam had a womb????? ;)

[Haadam]

David,
Is Jesus the Tree of Life? Does Jesus Speak in Symbolism? Lets See! John 15:5 SAy's I am the Vine ye are the Branches,he that abideth in me and I in Him, the Same bringeth forth much Fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.
Now Jesus was a Man, was'nt he! He twern't no TREE was HE! WEll why does He say he is? Jesus is the TREE of LIFE! WITHOUT him you have no LIFE. JESUS is ETERNAL! If you aint been Grafted into His Root Stock, Then You Gonna Die! So you can take your Bible Literal, I do also! But I wont say Jesus, is no tree of life. Cause he is. He said he is! LOve in Christ Name Haadam

[DavidforHim]

Thats great but why would a Ceribim need to be guarding no Tree of Life. There was a tree of good and evil and life, there still is. Somewhere.

[micreusa]

Let me also add that God breathed the breath of life into Adam, a man made in His own image.
It does not say that God placed the spirit of an Angel in him.
They were human.They were told not to eat from the TREE of knowledge. Maybe it was not an apple, but it was something literal that they were not supposed to touch.
If Adam and Eve were angelic, where does humanity come in?
No my friend, I must disagree this time and agree with David. Genesis for the most part is to be taken literally.

[Rev Moon jr]

Eve was given a responsibility and she failed. So, who is responsible? Eve!

[carma]

Ya, you are right Rev Moon, jr. I seem to remember in Genesis where Eve held a gun to Adam's head and made him eat the fruit also. :rolleyes:

Where was Adam, the one that was supposed to be the Spiritual leader and protector, when satan came after Eve????

[Thunderchild]

ROFL. Paul lays the blame squarely at the woman's feet, not at the man's.

"And I do not allow a woman to teach, neither to exercise authority over a man: for Adam was formed first, then Eve, and Adam was not deceived, but the woman - being deceived - fell into transgression."

(though it is beyond my comprehension why the woman should be not allowed to teach, because she was deceived, but the man is allowed to teach, despite wilfully sinning.)

As to the "fruit" being an apple - that is impossible...nonetheless, it is a orders of magnitude more likely than that it was the "fruit of the serpent's loins." No greater proof is needed than this - that it was not the tree of evil, but the tree of knowledge of good and evil. But just in case more does need to be provided, the clear correlation that it was literally eaten is in the declaration "Of any plant in the garden you may eat, except the fruit of the tree ..."

The point about the Christ being the tree of life does need to be addressed, however. For it is written that the believer does eat of the flesh of the Christ. (and no - the precept of transsubstantiation is rejected)

Please note that the cherubim were stationed to prevent access to the garden of Eden, not just the tree of life.

[carma]

Pastor Thunderchild,

You might want to read all of Paul's work, rightly divide the Word and study the Greek a bit.

Paul also said, "In Christ there is no man or woman, Jew or Gentile, free or slave.

[Thunderchild]

THAT topic was not at issue under the present circumstances Carma.

You might want to read all of Paul's work, rightly divide the Word and study the Greek a bit.

And the implications you make in your post are offensive.

[carma]

Look, I responded to your post, which is what people do, respond to post.

I didn't make any implications in my post to you, I said it outright, you need to read all the words of Paul and rightly divide the word.

You say "women" can't teach, that's not what Paul said. It's funny how someone and it is usually a man, will remember something Paul said or something they think he said, about women, but don't remember what he said about men.

Most people are not understanding what Paul taught, they don't understand the culture at that time or what was going on then. Christ did not teach these things and Paul would not contradict Christ.

That's why we must rightly divide the Word.

[Thunderchild]

You say "women" can't teach, that's not what Paul said. Odd that - the "I do not suffer women to teach, nor to hold authority over a man" is a direct quote from the Bible. I don't say it - Paul did.

Christ did not teach these things and Paul would not contradict Christ. The first clause is true - the Christ did not teach these things. On the other hand, there is no direct statement quoting Jesus to show that he taught the opposite. If Jesus had taught that women were in position equal to men, Paul would have contradicted him.

I have repeatedly stated that Paul's teachings about women are in conflict with the balance of the Bible's teachings, Carma, as you well know. But I have no intention of pretending that what he wrote is something other than what he did. I'll leave that game to people who have an agenda which requires them to disavow the facts.

[carma]

You actually think I don't know about that verse in Timothy?

Paul said "I do not allow", and he only said that to Timothy, but yet Paul also had some women in other churches, that he called the same Greek word that he called himself and Timothy.

Now why do you suppose that Paul said that to Timothy?

Paul was the one that brought women into the Church, they were not allowed in the Church or to be educated or even to talk to other men, except their husband and brothers.

A couple of things that Paul knew, these women could not teach, before they were taught and you can't go in a like a bull in a china shop, when changing cultural customs that had been in place for thousands of years.

Oh, something else Paul said:

In Christ there is no man or woman, Jew or Gentile, free or slave.

Hmmm....either Paul suffered from multiple personality disorder or someone needs to rightly divide the Word and study the Greek.

[Thunderchild]

Paul's "In Christ there is neither male nor female" is indeed Paul's statement - so is Paul's "I do not suffer a woman to teach."

Now there are two other possibilities (aside from your float of the multiple personality disorder idea) that need mention -
1/ Did Paul reverse a viewpoint that he had held earlier? (or perhaps he knew everything faultlessly from the first without the need of any teaching)
2/ Did Paul understand the implications of what he was saying with the declaration that "in Christ there is neither male nor female."? (more than once, people have spoken from God without understanding what they have been saying.)

Nonetheless - epitrepo is translated as "I allow" but the word means allow/permit. The verse then, is best translated as "a woman is not permitted to teach."

Paul said "I do not allow", and he only said that to Timothy, but yet Paul also had some women in other churches, that he called the same Greek word that he called himself and Timothy.
So what do we make of a statement made by only one author which is in conflict with the balance of the Bible? And indeed, a statement which is in conflict with that same author's other instructions?

1Cr 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman [is] the man; and the head of Christ [is] God.
(OK - so this only says that the woman is subordinate to her husband, but that STILL puts the woman, by reason of her gender, in a subordinate role to the man)
So what do we make of a statement made by only one author which is in conflict with the balance of the Bible?

Now there remains just ONE REMOTE (very remote) possibility. And it is ONLY a possibility. The question can be asked: Was Paul, in his letter to Timothy, referring to a specific woman? The question can be asked - there is no way to say "Paul was referring to one specific woman", but the question can be asked.

[carma]

Now there are two other possibilities (aside from your float of the multiple personality disorder idea) that need mention -
1/ Did Paul reverse a viewpoint that he had held earlier? (or perhaps he knew everything faultlessly from the first without the need of any teaching)
2/ Did Paul understand the implications of what he was saying with the declaration that "in Christ there is neither male nor female."? (more than once, people have spoken from God without understanding what they have been saying.)

No, there is a third, people are forever taking that scripture out of context. People are forever ignoring the cultural beliefs of the time.

No Paul had women teaching and leading in the Church, Paul was speaking to a particular Church when he wrote to Timothy, we have one side of the convo.

We hav all of Paul's other letters.

Paul listed a whole bunch of things that a man and women should or should not do, wanna get into those?

Paul also advocated marriage, in the legal sense, Paul was clear that we were to follow the laws of the government.

Also, while you are reading what Paul said about women being subject to their husbands, you might want to read about the entire body being subject to each other.

[Thunderchild]

Paul also advocated marriage, in the legal sense, Paul was clear that we were to follow the laws of the government.

We are to follow the laws of the government? Even when those laws are in conflict with God's law?

But seeing as how it is that you still have a bee in your bonnet about marriage - which is to be held in honour, not willy nilly disrupted for the sake of seemliness - it is the ruling of the government of Australia, that if a couple claim to be husband and wife then that is what they are - ceremony or not. IF you demand that the ruling of the government is to be obeyed, you must in Australia, submit to that decision.


Now - as to Paul's declarations about women. In his first epistle to Timothy, Paul leaves no doubt that he considers women to be in second place to men. In Ephesians Paul leaves no doubt that he considers wives to be subject to their husbands. Whatever stories might be made up for WHY these things were said do not change the facts about what was said. Rightly dividing the scriptures? Sure - it can't be shown that these passages have God's support (unless of course, you are able to prove that everything in the Bible is wholly without error.)

I am not about to pretend these passages say other than what they do. You can show me passages in contradiction until the second coming - those other passages do not change what is written in these passages (they do show that what is written in these passages does not stand). The passages in contradiction have NO EFFECT ON THE CONTENTS OF THESE PARTICULAR PASSAGES - they merely obliterate any possibility that these particular passages can be correct.

[carma]

Now - as to Paul's declarations about women. In his first epistle to Timothy, Paul leaves no doubt that he considers women to be in second place to men. In Ephesians Paul leaves no doubt that he considers wives to be subject to their husbands. Whatever stories might be made up for WHY these things were said do not change the facts about what was said. Rightly dividing the scriptures? Sure - it can't be shown that these passages have God's support (unless of course, you are able to prove that everything in the Bible is wholly without error.)

Oh Please!!! Paul never thought women were inferior. You also skip the scripture that says we are all to be subject to each other.

A quick study of the Greek used in all these passages where Paul spoke about women will tell you very quickly, that Paul was one of the first trying to bring in women's rights.

I've asked you before and you have never answered, are you actually a Pastor or is that just a monikor and nothing more?

[Thunderchild]

You have asked before, and I have answered before - yes, I am a pastor.

Oh Please!!! Paul never thought women were inferior.
1Cr 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman [is] the man; and the head of Christ [is] God. 11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. 12 For as the woman [is] of the man, even so [is] the man also by the woman; but all things of God.

There are other references.

Now for a question of my own - Is Carma also Keylan?

[carma]

Now for a question of my own - Is Carma also Keylan?

No, I go by one name on message boards and that is Carma, which is my real name.

[Thunderchild]

Of the fruit of any tree in the garden you may eat, except that of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. That statement does not allow for any interpretation other than that it was a fruit.

[Thunderchild]

Of the fruit of any tree in the garden you may eat, except that of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
When Eve looked at the tree and saw it was good for food.

These two statements taken together leave no room for a metaphorical use of "eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil."

[mikitta]

You know, Genesis 3:6 says that Eve turned to her husband who was with her and he ate. Adam was there, listening to the sepent's speil and never once spoke up against what was proposed or offered.

I find it a little offensive when men with over blown egos, from the pulpit blame the whole fall on Eve and totally ignore Adam's culpability. Yes, Eve sinned and ate the of the forbidden fruit. But her husband allowed his lust of the forbidden to seal his tongue when he should have spoken against the serpent and admonished his wife.

Now, as far as women being teachers or preachers - the suitability there depends on the woman and her message. Who are you, O man, to disparage what God has set in place? Remember Deborah? Hmmm, a judge over Isreal. Now, I bet that didn't take any teaching at all on her part. She just let her husband make all the descisions. She was just some man's puppet. Yeah, right. GOD HIMSELF appointed her.

Quite honestly, that little verse in Timothy has been used as the sick excuse for more violence against women than the any thing else in history. I wonder how many women have been beaten to death by husbands maliciously quoting that as they perpetrated their violence?

You know, maybe Paul did not allow women to teach in his congregations at this particular juncture, but we do not know about the other apostles. To take this one little verse and use it to strip women of their dignity and respect as human beings only shows that you, Pastor Thunderchild, or any other man who would do so, are weak in your masculinity and need to get a real life.

I'll conclude by saying that being in a subordinate role in the marraige relationship does not translate to a subordinate role to all men within the structure of the Church. Nor does it mean that a woman is of lesser value to Christ and the Church than men are.

But then, I am a woman and you probably have stoppered your ears by now, so I'll leave this as is.

God Bless,
mik

[Thunderchild]

Now, as far as women being teachers or preachers - the suitability there depends on the woman and her message. Who are you, O man, to disparage what God has set in place? Remember Deborah?

Was this perhaps addressed to me? I have been using Deborah as an example of Just How Paul Was Wrong for more than 20 years. If the criticism was addressed at me, a short side trip to pub43.ezboard.com/bwayrunners (http://pub43.ezboard.com/bwayrunners) would be in order.

Now to I find it a little offensive when men with over blown egos, from the pulpit blame the whole fall on Eve and totally ignore Adam's culpability

Why would men say such a thing from the pulpit? Oh my, it is In - The - Bible.

1Ti 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

Hmmm ... there is a slight problem with that verse. It is not based on the Biblical account of the fall, but on Hellenistic (Greek) mythology.

[Thunderchild]

Oh rats - I forgot to copy the thing across to my site, and I can't remember the location of the original.

Assuming I CAN locate the original (hopefully it wasn't on Christian Battle Zone) I will copy it to the WayRunners board, and post the URL for the original here as well.

Fact is (and I can see why people got the wrong idea) - I wholly endorse the FACT that God appoints people to roles of authority without regard to gender. What I have been saying until now in this forum - and go back to read those posts without your pre-conceptions - there are passages which state that women are in secondary roles to men. There is no pretending that those passages don't exist. There is no way to explain them away. (believe it). I have tried every possible theory that has been raised to try to explain them away - and every theory I have so far tested has been shown as nothing more than wishful thinking. Those passages do not allow for tinkering.

So then - I simply state that one author is in conflict with every other Biblical author on this issue, and that these statements conflict with others that even he himself has made. These passages are in error.

Copied from Sapere Aude board Women in the church Robin
For in Him there is no male or female, Jew or Greek, free or slave.

The first people to announce the Risen Lord were women. If it was so unlawful for women to preach, why would the Lord allow these to be the first witnesses of His Resurrection, and even command them to tell the others that His is Risen...tell the MEN?

Here are some other examples, of which I am sure most of you are aware but perhaps have forgotten, or overlooked.

Acts 2:1-21: At the time of Pentecost, the Holy Spirit was described as entering both men and women. In Verse 17, Peter recites a saying of the prophet Joel that talks about sons and daughters; Verse 18 talks about men and women.

Acts 9:36: Paul refers to a woman (Tabitha in Aramaic, Dorcas in Greek, Gazelle in English) as a Christian disciple.

Acts 18:24-26 describes how a married couple, Priscilla and Aquila, both acted in the role of pastor to a man from Alexandria, called Apollos. Various translations of the Bible imply that they taught him in the synagogue (Amplified Bible, King James Version, Rheims, New American Standard, New American, New Revised Standard) However, the New International Version have an unusual translation of this passage. The NIV states that the teaching occurred in Priscilla's and Aquila's home.

Acts 21:9: Four young women are referred to as prophetesses.


Romans 16:1: Paul refers to Phoebe as a minister (diakonos) of the church at Cenchrea. Some translations say deaconess; others try to downgrade her position by mistranslating it as "servant" or "helper".


Romans 16:3: Paul refers to Priscilla as another of his "fellow workers in Christ Jesus" (NIV) Other translations refer to her as a "co-worker". But other translations attempt to downgrade her status by calling her a "helper". The original Greek word is "synergoi", which literally means "fellow worker" or "colleague." (4)

Romans 16:7: Paul refers to a male apostle, Andronicus and a female apostle, Lunia, as "outstanding among the apostles" (NIV) The Amplified Bible translates this passage as "They are men held in high esteem among the apostles." The Revised Standard Version shows it as "they are men of note among the apostles." The reference to them both being men does not appear in the original Greek text. The word "men" was simply inserted by the translators, apparently because the translators' minds recoiled from the concept of a female apostle. Many translations, including the Amplified Bible, Rheims New Testament, New American Standard Bible, and the New International Version simply picked the letter "s" out of thin air. They converted the original "Junia" (a woman's name) into "Junias" (a man's name) in order to warp St. Paul's original writing by erasing all mention of a female apostle. Junia was first converted into a man only in the "13th century, when Aegidius of Rome (1245-1316) referred to both Andronicus and Junia as "honorable men."


1 Corinthians 1:11: Chloe is mentioned as the owner of a house where Christian meetings were held. There is some ambiguity as to whether the women actually led the house churches. Similar passages mention, with the same ambiguity: The mother of Mark in Acts 12:12, and
Lydia in Acts 16:14-5, and 40, and
Nympha in (Col 4:15).


1 Corinthians 12:4-7: This discusses gifts that the Holy Spirit gives to all believers, both men and women. The New International Version obscures this message; in Verse 6 is translated "all men", whereas other translations use the terms "all", "all persons", "in everyone", and "in all."

1 Corinthians 16:3: Paul refers to a married couple: Priscilla and Aquila as his fellow workers in Christ Jesus.

2 Corinthians 5:17: "Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation..." (NIV). Again "anyone" appears to mean both men and women.

Galatians 3:28: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (NIV) This is perhaps the most famous passage in the New Testament that assigns equal status to individuals of both genders (and all races, nationalities and slave status).

Philippians 4:2: Paul refers to two women, Euodia and Syntyche, as his coworkers who were active evangelists, spreading the gospel.

Philemon 2: Paul writes his letter to "Apphia, our sister" and two men as the three leaders of a house church.

1 Peter 4:10-11: This passages discusses all believers serving others with whatever gifts the Holy Spirit has given them, "faithfully administering God's grace in its various forms." (NIV) Presumably this would mean that some women are given the gift of being an effective pastor, and should be permitted to exercise that gift.

My response - posted on the second of February - Note the final paragraph.

Re: Women in the church - Robin Pastor Thunderchild
2 Corinthians 5:17: "Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation..." (NIV). Again "anyone" appears to mean both men and women.
"Therefore if anyone (tis - anyone) is in Christ, he (added in translation to make it understandable) is a new creation." Definitely is as you claim Robin. And the Old Testament prophecy "I will pour out my spirit on your sons and your daughters ..." wouldn't be met if only males were recipients of grace anyway.

Phillipians 4:2 and Philemon 1:2 are extremely doubtful in rendering - I would not attempt to use them in any argument against Paul's relegating women to a secondary role in some of his writings. Simply put - they are not needed, and they could make it look as though you are clutching at straws.

As for 1 Peter 4:10-11 - If the relegation of women to secondary position was true, no woman would be given the gift to be an effective pastor anyway.

Happily, solid scriptural evidence shows that women are appointed by God - without ANY possibility of contradiction - to high rank within the church. (Your reference to the daughters of Simon from Acts). As prophetesses, they ranked second in human authority within the church. While this does not show women as being highest rank (apostle), it is clear that a teacher or healer, being male, would be on thin ice either in challenging a prophet (being female) or ignoring her directives.

[mikitta]

Thank you for clearing that up, Pastor Thunderchild. It IS a sensitive subject for some obvious reasons. I have heard a few to many men denegrate women - pastors denegriting their female parishoners - with this argument.

Personally, I have no problem with men saying that Eve was decieved, just so long as they add in that Adam was with her and obviously was in complete agreement with the serpent and said not one word in defense of God's word. Sin is still sin but it is reasonable to draw the conclusion that while Eve sinned because she was decieved, Adam sinned even though he was not.

God Bless,
mik

[Thunderchild]

It is also written that no-one sins until that one has been deceived by his own desire - so Adam doesn't even get away with deliberately sinning where Eve sinned as a result of being deceived.

[mikitta]

Perhaps it would be fair to say that lust for the forbidden fruit had already taken root within his heart when oportunity presented itself?

God Bless,
mik

[Thunderchild]

**chortle**

I never looked at it that way, but the concept is valid.

[Rev Moon jr]

<msg removed by board moderator>

[carma]

Rev Moon,

Scripture is very clear what the fall of man was and it was not sexual in nature.

What you continually post, without anything to back it up and the only thing that is 100% is God's Word; is nothing more than a lie that satan would have people believe.

We know exactly what happened at the fall of man, and those scriptures have been posted over and over.

[ZoneChaos]

<Moderateor Hat On>

I deleted Rev. Moons reply to this thread because i felt is was in-appropriate for this forum.

<Moderator Hat Off>

[Josephus]

bump - what do you think?

[LouisBooth]

umm....about what? :lol: that we all are to blame for the fall? Do you sin? If you have then you chose the same as Adam and Eve.

[Peeker]

Did you ever notice that the word applied to Adam and Eve, before they ate of the fruit, translated as "naked," Gen: 2:24, [from the Hebrew root A-R-M (ayin, resh, mem sophit)] is the same word that in the very next verse, Gen 3:1, is also applied to the snake in the garden of Eden, but is translated as "subtle" meaning "cunning" with a connotation of evil? So, it can 'read' that Adam and Eve were naked and not ashamed and the snake was the most naked, or it can 'read' that A&E were subtle and not ashamed and the snake was the moste subtle of the beasts. (Contrast the word "naked" with "clothed in righteousness" for a moment...)

The only reason that the ancients didn't translate these words the same is because that implies that the snake and A&E were the same morally but A&E were not ashamed about it (!) which of course goes against all orthadox interpretations about the origin of sin.

Because Christian scholars also rejected the supposition that the spirits made their choice to sin in the spirit world before the creation of the physical world, they too followed the Hebrew tradition...theology leading scriptural understanding.

http://pub22.ezboard.com/bpreconceptionexistance

:)

[LouisBooth]

"Because Christian scholars also rejected the supposition that the spirits made their choice to sin in the spirit world before the creation of the physical world"

Umm..this implies a gnostic way of thinking and pre-exsistance of the soul with is NOT correct.