FOR THOSE TO WHOM THE COVENANT BELONGS

Welcome to Clifton A. Emahiser’s Non-Universal Teaching Ministries. Here there shall be posted archives of all of the writings produced by this ministry since its inception in February of 1998. This site is the official site for Clifton Emahiser's Watchman's Teaching Ministries. Thank you and enjoy your reading!

Who are the Biblical Angels? – A Critical Perspective, (#12)

Category: 

In paper #10 of this series, I demonstrated how the fallen angels of Gen. 6:1-4 had sexual relations with the daughters of Adam-man, producing giants [i.e., Nephilim, meaning “fallen ones”]. In 1936, there was a giant born to Edomite-jewish parents in Tel Aviv who later immigrated to New York, and the news of this was a sensation in the late 1930s and early 40s in the United States. At that time many believed gigantism was due to a thyroid malfunction. However, it is a genetic condition caused by hybridization. For this I will cite the 1980 Collier’s Encyclopedia, vol. 12, pp. 68-78 in part:

HEREDITY, the tendency, recognized by common observation, for offspring to resemble their parents. This phenomenon is obvious at the species level: roses always beget roses and horses always beget horses. Although slightly less obvious, the same is also true within a species: thus, tall parents tend to have tall children. However, there are many exceptions to the simple statement that ‘like begets like,’ and the rules of inheritance were long a puzzle. Over the past hundred years [from 1980], scientists have gradually unraveled many of the mysteries of inheritance, and the study of heredity, called genetics, is now a major branch of science.

Early Concepts:Until the end of the 19th century, both popular opinion and scientists recognized two general principles of heredity, both of which are now known to have been incorrect. The first ‘principle’ was that of blending inheritance: each parent was supposed to contribute a certain quantity of some hereditary characteristic, and the offspring was supposed to be some sort of average between the two. Thus, a blend of coffee and cream would have been used as an example to describe the inheritance of skin color in man.

“The second ‘principle’ was that the offspring inherited the actual characteristics, or traits, of their parents. This view also implied the doctrine of the inheritance of acquired characteristics. For example, if some organ, such as muscle, was well developed in the parent due to exercise or proper food, it was believed that this would produce stronger muscles in the offspring. The English naturalist Charles Darwin, in attempting to explain this ‘fact,’ proposed that tiny particles, called pangenes, were produced by each organ and converged into the eggs and sperm, forming there a sort of precursor of each organ that was then passed on to the offspring. From this hypothesis, it followed that amputation of a body part would remove the source of such pangenes and cause the reduction or absence of that part in the offspring. Obviously, however, amputations are not inherited, and to account for cases of this kind special explanations were invented. Other cases of seemingly irregular inheritance were explained by atavism, a mysterious tendency to revert to some more or less distant ancestor, even though this explanation contradicted the idea of the inheritance of acquired characteristics.

A Brief History of the Edomite-Satanic-Devil, Herod the Great!

From the 1894, 9th edition of The Encyclopædia Britannica, vol. 11 of 25, pp. 674-675, under the subtitle “Herod”, we read (edited to improve understanding):

HEROD was the name of a family of Idumæan origin, which displaced the Asmoneans [or Levitical Hasmoneans] as the rulers of Judæa. The founder of the dynasty, and its most notable representative in every way was Herod the Great, who was king of the Jews [sic citizens of Judaea] for about thirty-seven years, from 40 to 4 B.C.

[Critical note by Clifton A. Emahiser: CONFUSED DATING OF WISE MEN: Most Biblical commentaries have Herod the Great’s death at 4 B.C. which conflicts with Luke 2:1-23. However, Insight On The Scriptures, volume 1 of 2, p. 1093, under subtitle “Date of His Death“ says in part: “A problem arises with regard to the time of Herod’s death. Some chronologers hold that he died in year 5 or 4 B.C. Their chronology is based to a large extent on Josephus’ history. In dating the time that Herod was appointed king by Rome, Josephus uses a ‘consular dating, that is, he locates the event as occurring during the rule of certain Roman consuls ... This might indicate that the date of his death was 2 or perhaps 1 B.C.” This agrees with a 3 B.C. date for the birth of Christ. It is quite clear that the wise men visited Christ at Galilee about two years after the manger scene at Bethlehem. Christmas, as celebrated today, does not separate these as two different events. It would seem, if we are going to celebrate Christ’s birth, we would keep these two events in their proper order!] – Back to The Encyclopædia Britannica:

Herod’s father [and Grandfather] were named Antipater [whom the latter], during the troubles which broke out in the family of Alexander Jannæus, attached himself to Hyrcanus, the weak-minded son of Alexander. In this way Antipater, though an Idumæan, soon became the most powerful man in Judæa, and in the Alexandrian war gave such effectual help to Julius Cæsar that the dictator made him procurator of Judæa, Hyrcanus being high priest (47?) B.C.). The same year, at the age of twenty-five, Herod was appointed governor of Galilee by his father. He soon gave proof of the remarkable energy of his character in rooting out the banditti who infested his province; but his summary measures gave a handle to the enemies of his house at Jerusalem, and he was summoned before the sanhedrin. There he appeared, not in the garb of an accused person, but gorgeously attired, and attended by a guard of soldiers. He found it expedient, however, to withdraw from Jerusalem without awaiting the sentence. He retired to Syria, where he was met with a gracious reception from Sextus Cæsar, who appointed him governor of Coele Syria....

Contrary To Genesis 4:1, Adam Was Definitely Not Cain’s Father!

The cited verse above, from the KJV, reads: And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the Lord.” This verse seems to have been corrupted even before the Septuagint!

I will cite some of the oldest manuscripts we have access to in an attempt to restore the original meanings to some current errors. An important witness is the Hexapla, and I will cite the 1881, 15-volume Library of Universal Knowledge, vol. 7, p. 514:

HEXAPLA (Gr. hexapla, ‘the sixfold’), a celebrated edition of the Septuagint version, compiled by Origen for the purpose of restoring the purity of its text, and bringing it into closer agreement with the original Hebrew. Owing to the multiplication of transcripts of the Greek text, numerous errors had crept in; and in the frequent controversies which arose between the [Judaeans] and the Greek or Hellenist (q.v.) Christians, the latter, in appealing to the Greek text, were often mortified by the discovery that it by no means represented faithfully the Hebrew original. In order to meet this evil, Origen undertook to provide a means of at least verifying the genuine Greek text, as well as of confronting it with the original. With this view he prepared what is known as his Tetrapla, or ‘fourfold’ version, which he afterwards extended into the hexapla. The Tetrapla contained, in four parallel columns, the Septuagint version, together with those of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion. The hexapla contained, in addition, the Hebrew text, together with a transcript of that text in Greek characters. In some parts of the Old Testament there were superadded one, two, and even three other versions; so that in some parts the work contains nine columns, whence it is occasionally designated the Heneapla, or ‘ninefold.’ Of the origin of these latter versions little is known.

“The hexapla, however, was something more than a mere compilation of these versions. In the margin were given notes, chiefly explanatory, as, for instance, of the Hebrew names. But a still more important characteristic of the work were its restorations and corrections of the original, in which Origen was guided chiefly by the version of Theodotion. This, however, he did not effect by arbitrary alterations of the received text; but, while he retained the common text, by indicating with the help of certain signs (an asterisk for an addition, an obelisk for a retrenchment), the corrections which he sought to introduce. Both these texts, the common (koiné ekdosis)and that of the hexapla, are found combined in existing MSS. The hexapla, as a whole, has long been lost; several editions of those fragments of it which it has been possible to recover have been printed; by far the most complete of which is that of the celebrated Benedictine, Montfaucon (2 vols. fol., Paris, 1714), which retains, so far as it was preserved in the MSS., the arrangement and even the asterisks and obelisks of Origen. For a more detailed account, see the preface and Præliminaria of this learned work.” (Incidentally, these two large volumes are in PDF, and can be downloaded from my website: Volume 1, Volume 2)

Watchman's Teaching Letter #230 June 2017

This is my two hundred and thirtieth monthly teaching letter and continues my twentieth year of publication. I have resolved to do a series of lessons providing clarifying criticism of Howard B. Rand’s books, tracts and articles published in his Destiny Magazine. I will continue # XI “The Ark Captured And Restored” & # XII, “Israel Demands A King”, for November & December, 1949 (and editing will be necessary):

The Ark Captured And Restored:

Israel’s Fighting Men went out to meet the Philistines who had come against them to battle at Aphek, and the hosts of Israel were routed before their enemies. Four thousand Israelites fell in one day upon the field of battle. When the army returned to their fortified camp, the elders of Israel sought the reason why Yahweh had allowed His people to be smitten before their enemies.

Ark Brought Into Camp

It was decided to send to Shiloh and have the Ark of the Covenant brought into the camp of Israel so that its presence might rescue them from the Philistines and assure victory over their enemies. With the Ark came Eli’s two sons, Hophni and Phinehas, who were very wicked in the sight of Yahweh. Actually, the people themselves had turned away from Yahweh and were worshipping idols, refusing to obey the Almighty’s commandments and keep His statutes. Herein lay the real reason why they had been defeated, for they had lost full contact with Yahweh their Almighty by their failure to walk in the paths of righteousness. Now they were seeking to compel Yahweh to protect them by bringing the Ark of the Covenant of Yahweh into the midst of the battle. They could not conceive of Yahweh allowing the uncircumcised Philistines to gain possession of their most sacred thing, the Ark of the Covenant with its Mercy Seat, where the Almighty’s people met with Yahweh.

Condition for Victory

What the elders in Israel and the people were failing to recognize was that Yahweh could protect the Ark, even though it might be necessary to allow it to be captured by the Philistines because of sin in the camp of Israel. Subsequent events clearly demonstrate the accuracy of this assertion. Even the presence of the Ark of the Covenant could not assure victory to a sinful nation. Yahweh had declared Israel must keep His Sabbaths and reverence His sanctuary, and then He said:

If ye walk in my statutes, and keep my commandments, and do them ... ye shall chase your enemies, and they shall fall before you by the sword. And five of you shall chase an hundred, and an hundred of you shall put ten thousand to flight: and your enemies shall fall before you by the sword.’ (Lev. 26:3-8.)

But if Israel persisted in despising His statutes and abhorring His judgments, refusing to obey all His commandments, and so breaking His [marriage] Covenant, among the things to be visited upon them was the following:

... I will bring a sword upon you, that shall avenge the quarrel of my covenant ...’ (Lev. 26:25.)

Watchman's Teaching Letter #229 May 2017

This is my two hundred and twenty-ninth monthly teaching letter and begins my twentieth year of publication. I have resolved to do a series of lessons providing clarifying criticism of Howard B. Rand’s books, tracts and articles published in his Destiny Magazine, which includes several guest writers of varying degrees in excellence. Although I rate Rand and his associate writers only 50%, some of their articles are simply outstanding.

With this lesson, I will continue this critical review of a series entitled “The Book Of The Kingdom” found in Destiny magazines from January, 1949 until April, 1952, in 24 chapters.

With WTL #228, I completed chapters VI & VII of “The Book Of The Kingdom”, Destiny, June 1949: With this lesson, I will cite chapters IX & X of XXIV, entitled “Boaz And Ruth”, plus “Birth And Dedication of Samuel”, (edited to improve clarity):

Boaz And Ruth:

The Bookof Ruth opens with the statement that at one time during the days when the judges ruled there was a famine in Israel’s land. Because of its severity, a certain man of Bethlehem Judah, with his wife and two sons, went to sojourn in the land of Moab, for the famine did not extend into that country. The man’s name was Elimelech and his wife was Naomi. Naomi’s husband died and her two sons married two women of Moab. Finally the two sons also died, leaving Naomi with her two daughters-in-law.

Ruth’s Decision

When Naomi found out that the famine conditions had been relieved in her homeland, she made preparations to return with her two daughters-in-law, Orpah and Ruth. As they commenced their journey down the road, Naomi advised the two girls to return to their former homes in Moab. They had probably talked this over many times and this was her final insistence that the young widows find other husbands in Moab instead of remaining with her. Orpah returned but Ruth refused to leave her, saying:

... Intreat me not to leave thee, or to return from following after thee: for whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people shall be my people, and thy Almighty my Almighty. Where thou diest, will I die, and there will I be buried: Yahweh do so to me, and more also, if ought but death part thee and me.’ (Ruth 1:16-17.)

Therefore, the two, Naomi and Ruth, went on together to Bethlehem where Naomi received a warm welcome. However, she told her relatives not to call her Naomi, which means pleasant, but rather to call her Mara, meaning bitter, for she said, ‘The Almighty hath dealt very bitterly with me.’ She had left her native land with a husband and two sons; now she was returning empty handed.

Announcements

New CDs now available!!! Now available on CD are each of years 7 through 12 of Clifton A. Emahiser's Watchman's Teaching Letters, professionally narrated by Dan Adams.


Watchman's Teaching Letters for 2004


Watchman's Teaching Letters for 2005


Watchman's Teaching Letters for 2006

 


Watchman's Teaching Letters for 2007


Watchman's Teaching Letters for 2008


Watchman's Teaching Letters for 2009

 

Click here to buy now!
Click the blue button to buy all 6 CDs now!

 

Now available on CD are each of the first 6 years of Clifton A. Emahiser's Watchman's Teaching Letters, professionally narrated by Dan Adams.


Watchman's Teaching Letters for 1998


Watchman's Teaching Letters for 1999


Watchman's Teaching Letters for 2000

 


Watchman's Teaching Letters for 2001


Watchman's Teaching Letters for 2002


Watchman's Teaching Letters for 2003

 

Click here to buy now!
Click the blue button to buy all 6 CDs now!

 

Pages