tft-short-4578168
Ken Ammi’s True Free Thinker:
BooksYouTube or OdyseeTwitterFacebookSearch

Clifton A. Emahiser on Eve’s sex with Satan & gap theory

clifton20a-20emahiser-2187386

It is simply amazing the various unreasonable, preposterous, nonsensical and twisted arguments that opponents of Two Seedline teaching advance to

secure their groundless, unfounded and insecure positions.

—Clifton A. Emahiser

Herein I continue reviewing Clifton A. Emahiser’s The Great Two Seedline Controversy War in Identity and you can find the series here (emphasis within quotes from Emahiser are his own).

Clifton A. Emahiser also claims:

Eve had a sexual encounter with the serpent in the garden. Let the opponents of Two Seedline doctrine throw up their hands in horror and consternation all they desire to. It will not change scriptural facts. Genesis 3:13 says: “… And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.”
It is absurd to suggest Eve was beguiled to eat ordinary food when Yahweh had already approved of eating from garden-variety fruit trees (Gen. 1:29).

I agree, it is absurd to suggest Eve was beguiled to eat ordinary food when Yahweh had already approved of eating from garden-variety fruit trees. It is as if—wink, wink, nudge, nudge—he misses the entire point of the text which is that Eve was not beguiled to eat ordinary food but into eating the forbidden fruit.

He also notes:

The opponents of Two Seedline doctrine are always swift to counter with the argument, “If Adam and Eve could eat of all the other trees of the garden, that would mean they could have sexual relations with anyone whom they desired. If trees represents humans in one place, it would have to represent humans in all other places, and this would be highly immoral!” This is entirely a false assumption because sometimes the Hebrew is speaking of actual wooden trees, and at other times is speaking of idiomatic trees.

Where was this rational Emahiser when he was arguing that touch and eat mean sex? Indeed, sometimes the Hebrew is speaking of touch and eat and sometimes sex. Context determines meaning and it is a good argument to make that if in Genesis 2 God is referring to mere actual wooden trees then in Genesis 3 He is still referring to mere actual wooden trees (note that chapter divisions mean nothing and 2-3 are one continuous thought).
But wait, perhaps this is not a rational Emahiser after all since it was he who claimed that Genesis 2 was telling us that “there were a lot of women…running around the garden” within the context of “Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat…” with the one exception.

Clifton A. Emahiser right notes, “If one cannot separate the literal language from the idiomatic language of the Scripture, one simply cannot understand the Bible.” Since he cannot separate the literal language from the idiomatic language of the Scripture, he simply cannot understand the Bible.

He also has a section wherein he goes about “putting events in their proper order” thusly:

General renovation of the earth. War in the heavens. Satan and 1/3 of angels cast and bound to earth. Adam and Eve formed in the image of Yahweh. Satan seduced Eve and caused a 1ST. PREGNANCY. Adam knew Eve and caused 2ND. PREGNANCY. Cain is born of 1ST. PREGNANCY. Abel is born of 2ND. PREGNANCY. Cain murders Abel. Adam knows Eve again for a 3RD. PREGNANCY.

Seth is born as a substitute for Abel.

Now, I cannot exactly blame him and him alone for such a chronology as there are part of this with which many people agree and this is due, in part, with the Bible not giving us many details about portions of the timeline. Here is my review:

General renovation of the earth. He writes of a renovation due to holding to the “gap theory” which is whence he assumes pre-Adamites. This is based on a wild guess that Satan must have fallen centuries or millennia or millions of years before the creation of Adam and Eve. This gap is said to fit between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2, “1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” The argument goes that the reason that “the earth was without form, and void” is because of the Revelation 12 war whereby the Earth was decimated.

Now, I may be too simple a thinker but it seems to me that the text is simply stating that God created the earth, as in solid matter, this earth was without form and void and then God molds this matter into the planet we call Earth.

Yet, there is more to correcting the gap theory than having both sides guess about what is meant by without form and void. The fact is that gap theorists have to guess at and invent a pre Adamic fall of Satan, etc. Yet, Genesis 3 is pinpointing exactly when Satan fell. That is the first instance we have of Satan controverting God and also of God curing Satan. Thus, Satan did not fall in some undetermined pre Adamic past but during an intra Adamic time.

War in the heavens and Satan and 1/3 of angels cast and bound to earth refers to that which I just reviewed. He is applying Revelation 12 to a pre Adamic time and yet, the text notes that Satan, symbolized as a dragon, “drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born” which means that the timeline being around Jesus’ birth.

Adam and Eve formed in the image of Yahweh and then the serpent seedline of Satan theory assertion that Satan seduced Eve and caused a 1ST. PREGNANCY and then Adam knew Eve and caused 2ND. PREGNANCY. Interestingly, some such theorist claim that there was not two pregnancies but that Cain and Abel were superfecundated twins: one mother, one pregnancy but two fathers.

Cain is born of 1ST. PREGNANCY, Abel is born of 2ND. PREGNANCY, Cain murders Abel and Adam knows Eve again for a 3RD. PREGNANCY; that Seth is the third pregnancy is something that the Bible does not actually state. Many girls could have been born between Abel and Seth.

But perhaps even many boys were born between the two. But what of Seth is born as a substitute for Abel? It may very well be that Seth was the first boy since Abel. However, Genesis 5 states that Adam “begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth…and he begat sons and daughters.”
Serpent seedline of Satan theorists invent the idea that this is a statement about Cain not being own likeness, after his image due to having different genetics. However, of course, this is a mere reading into the text invention. Perhaps, own likeness, after his image means nothing more than that of all other boys born between Abel and Seth, Seth is the one that reminded Eve of Abel and/or that he is the one that looked most like Adam (his own likeness, after his image). But if Cain and Abel were twins did Cain not look like Adam as well? He would have yet, the point is that Cain absconded and Eve was thrilled to have another baby that reminded her of Abel and/or looked much like Adam.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help. Here is my donate/paypal page.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page.

Twitter: #CliftonEmahiser, #Seedlines, #ChristianIdentity
Facebook: #CliftonEmahiser, #Seedlines, #ChristianIdentity


Posted

in

by

Tags: