With this 3rd paper, we are going to show that there is more to the story of “the angels that sinned” which are “chained in darkness” than meets the eye. The angels that sinned are presently among us on earth as walking, genetic, Biblical violations in shoeleather (today probably in football or basketball shoes).

With this issue, we will continue to scrutinize a 31 page booklet entitled The Angels That Sinned, written in 1929 by Clifton L. Fowler, and reprinted by Dan Gayman of the Church of Israel in 1992. While the author gets a lot of things right, he falls slightly short of understanding the sexual seduction of Eve in the garden of Eden which brought about “the seed of the serpent” at Gen. 3:15. He divided his booklet into seven subchapters thusly:

“I. The Angels That Sinned Were At One Time Angels Of Righteousness And Glory.

“II. The Angels That Sinned Were Disobedient In The Days Of Noah.

“III. The Angels That Sinned Are The Same As The Sons Of God Of Genesis Six.

“IV. The Angels That Sinned, Sinned In Like Manner To Sodom And Gomorrha.

“V. The Angels That Sinned Became The Progenitors Of The Giants.

“VI. The Angels That Sinned Particularly Aimed At The Pollution Of The Women Of The Race.

“VII. The Angels That Sinned Are Now Imprisoned In Tartarus Awaiting Judgment.”

On pages 5-8, Fowler (although with a couple of errors which I will address), stated thusly:

“I. The Angels That Sinned Were At One Time Angels Of Righteousness And Glory:

“The sentient creation of God falls into three great groups – angels, demons, and men. All three were created perfect, because God being perfect produces only that which is harmonious with His perfection. For that which is imperfect to spring from a perfect source is unthinkable.

With this second paper, we are going to explore more thoroughly the topic at hand. It’s a serious subject, not to be passed over lightly! Inasmuch as a sin is a transgression against Yahweh’s law, we must inquire as to what kind of violation these angels were guilty of committing? As we go along, we will find that it was an “unforgivable sin”, as there can be no rectifying the disastrous result which happened in the past, presently, or at any time in the future. With this issue, we will scrutinize a 31 page booklet entitled The Angels That Sinned, written in 1929 by Clifton L. Fowler, and reprinted by Dan Gayman of the Church of Israel in 1992. While the author gets a lot of things right, he falls slightly short of understanding that the sexual seduction of Eve in the garden of Eden, brought about “the seed of the serpent” at Gen. 3:15. He divides his booklet into seven subchapters thusly:

“I. The Angels That Sinned Were At One Time Angels Of Righteousness And Glory.

“II. The Angels That Sinned Were Disobedient In The Days Of Noah.

“III. The Angels That Sinned Are The Same As The Sons Of God Of Genesis Six.

“IV. The Angels That Sinned, Sinned In Like Manner To Sodom And Gomorrha.

“V. The Angels That Sinned Became The Progenitors Of The Giants.

“VI. The Angels That Sinned Particularly Aimed At The Pollution Of The Women Of The Race.

“VII. The Angels That Sinned Are Now Imprisoned In Tartarus Awaiting Judgment.”

Of these seven categories, number six is the most significant, as a criminal very seldom changes his “method of operation”, and Satan and his angels are no exception. Satan’s “MO” from the very beginning, until this very day, is to racially pollute the pure genetics of Yahweh’s White Adamic children, and replace them with Satan’s racially-mixed, unclean peoples. Anyone who can’t see this very thing going on at the present time, in every White Israel nation today, has to be blind-as-a-bat, for it is an obvious no-brainer!

This investigation of the Beast Of The Field is turning into quite a detective story. In part #1 of this series, I told you: “About two years ago, a very good friend of mine gave me a copy of a video presentation by pastor Allen Campbell of Belfast, Ireland entitled Who Are The Beast of the Field?” As I explained in that first paper on this subject, initially I was very much in agreement with Campbell’s premise. However, upon checking out the Scripture references and the meanings of the Hebrew words he used to substantiate his thesis, I found he really didn’t establish solid Biblical evidence for his sermon on this topic! Therefore, for the sake of Campbell’s general – but not entirely correct premise – I would not discourage anyone from studying his presentation if done while, (1) scrutinizing the Hebrew or Greek words, (2) keeping in mind the context of the rest of the Bible, and (3) taking into account the meaning of Hebrew idioms, of which many people don’t have the slightest clue as to whether the text is literal or figurative.

After I had listened intently to Campbell’s spoken presentation on this subject, I was very pleased, as it was much in line with my own findings. I was excited to the point that I decided to write my own paper on the topic, hoping to find even more evidence in Holy Writ to display just who these “beast of the field” are.

However, I was not about to write a single word until I had checked all of the references which Campbell cited, along with the key words of those citations, whether Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek. It is hard for me to describe how disappointed I was when Campbell, in almost every instance, identified the wrong Hebrew word, and in many cases his definitions didn’t match the word he cited. While consulting with my numerous lexicons and realizing his many inconsistencies, I asked within myself, “What kind of Bible lexicon does this man use?” To say the least, I put my goal for writing a composition on “the beast of the field” on the back burner until I had done some serious contemplation, and I was better prepared!

In part #’s 1 through 4 of this series, I have addressed the many errors in identifying who “the beast of the field” are. In part #3, I gave substantial evidence that the name of the devil actually [also] means “ape” in Arabic, according to Adam Clarke. Also in part #3, with data from the Greek passed on to me by William Finck, I came into substantial evidence that indeed we are dealing with the idea of an “ape”:

From A Greek-English Lexicon by Liddell & Scott, page 1232, on the Greek equivalent to the Hebrew word “satyr” we find the following definition:

“ὁνοκένταυρα, ἡ, or ὁνοκένταυρος, ὁ, a kind of tailless ape, Ael. NA 17.9. 2. a kind of demon haunting wild places, LXX Is. 13:22, 34:11, 14.” Notice especially Isa. 34:14! So, what it amounts to is, if one observes someone who appears to be a combination of man and ape, odds are one is looking at a devil!

Then in part #4, I showed relevant evidence that in early Greek art and sculpture a satyr (devil) was portrayed as an “ape”. After I had finished part #4, I found more evidence on the Internet that in early Greek art and sculpture “satyr” meant an “ape” at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Satyr#Satyrs_as_Apes [This is a Wikipedia discussion page for the article on the Satyr - WRF]

“Satyrs as Apes: ‘The concept of satyr as a type of ape is older than the 17th century - The Book of Beasts (T.H. White’s translation of a 12th-century bestiary) clearly describes the Satyr as an ape of some sort. (The illustration shows a traditional satyr, but the description is of an ape)….”

In pamphlet #’s 1 and 2 on this subject I have given substantial evidence that the Biblical phrase “beast of the field” (often meaning four-footed/quadruped animals, domesticated or wild) is sometimes used as a Hebrew idiom for two-legged/biped creatures appearing as men. In paper #1, I showed adequate documentation that neither Strong’s Hebrew word #2423 “chêyvâ”, nor #2416, “chay”, could support, or be translated or interpreted as a two-legged/biped “beast of the field”. With this paper I will show evidence that the “devil” and the “ape” have the same name! Also, that “Satan” is likened to “orangutan”. To document this, I will use Adam Clarke’s Bible Commentary, volume 1, pp. 47-50 under “Notes On Chapter III”, and especially on the terms “nachash” and “beast” at Genesis 3:1.

I would point out, what you are about to read was edited out of Ralph Earle’s abridged edition of Clarke’s Bible Commentary, no doubt believing he was doing God and nominal churchianity a favor! Also, Clarke was a master of several languages:

“NOTES ON CHAP. III

“Verse 1. Now the serpent was more subtle]We have here one of the most difficult as well as the most important narratives in the whole book of God. The last chapter ended with a short but striking account of the perfection and felicity of the first human beings, and this opens with an account of their transgression, degradation, and ruin. That man is in a fallen state, the history of the world, with that of the life and miseries of every human being, establishes beyond successful contradiction. But how, and by what agency, was this brought about? Here is a great mystery, and I may appeal to all persons who have read the various comments that have been written on the Mosaic account, whether they have ever yet been satisfied on this part of the subject, though convinced of the fact itself. Who was theserpent? of what kind? In what way did he seduce the first happy pair? These are questions which remain yet to be answered. The whole account is either a simple narrative of facts, or it is an allegory. If it be a historical relation, its literal meaning should be sought out; if it be an allegory, no attempt should be made to explain it, as it would require a direct revelation to ascertain the sense in which it should be understood, for fanciful illustrations are endless. Believing it to be a simple relation of facts capable of a satisfactory explanation, I shall take it up on this ground; and, by a careful examination of the original text, endeavour to fix the meaning, and show the propriety and consistency of the Mosaic account of the fall of man. The chief difficulty in the account is found in the question, Who was the agent employed in the seduction of our first parents?”

IDENTIFYING THE “BEAST OF THE FIELD”, ^#1

Clifton A. Emahiser’s Teaching Ministries

For many years I have held the position that the Biblical designation “beast of the field” often is an idiomatic expression for the non-Adamic races (i.e., such as the negroid and mongoloid), which I prefer not to capitalize). My late wife, who died in 1993, would refer to them as “BOFs”, our own secret-code term for them. Every culture has had idiomatic expressions peculiar to their own social conditions. Israel is not an exception to this phenomenon, for the Bible is just loaded with idioms, especially in the Old Testament Hebrew.

About two years ago, a very good friend of mine gave me a copy of a video presentation by pastor Allen Campbell of Belfast, Ireland entitled Who Are The Beast of the Field? I would guess that it was made ten years ago, around the year 2000. When I first viewed this video, I was quite impressed, as I agreed with Campbell that the negroids were indeed included under the Biblical idiom “beast of the field”! I was so swayed by Campbell’s reasoning that I decided to write my own version on this topic. But this is where I ran into trouble!

Campbell started his presentation by appropriately quoting Jonah 3:7-8 thusly:“⁷ And he caused it to be proclaimed and published through Nineveh by the decree of the king and his nobles, saying, Let neither man nor beast, herd nor flock, taste any thing: let them not feed, nor drink water: ⁸ But let man and beast be covered with sackcloth, and cry mightily unto God: yea, let them turn every one from his evil way, and from the violence that is in their hands.”

Many have inquired concerning parts of Paul’s epistle to the Galataians, and especially in chapter 3. Here we present the entire epistle, from my edition of The Letters of Paul, hoping to shed light on various matters. While there is no space here for which to explain many of the methods employed in the translation, they are explained extensively in the full volume. Space does allow us to provide one of the footnotes, that for v. 3:16, found at the end of this document. A companion essay demonstrating Paul’s use of “Anointed” for the children of Israel shall soon follow.

I have seen the need for, and have taken upon myself, the defense of historians and Biblical personages of an anointed nature, for all Truth is Anointed. I have taken up the cause of such personalities as Herodotus, Josephus and Eusebius as historians and am now in the process of defending the veracity of the apostle Paul. Most of the deliberation on the apostle Paul I have turned over to my good friend William Finck for his discernment is excellent in that area.

In addition to Paul, it will be necessary to also defend Luke, the writer of both Luke and Acts in our New Testament. With Luke, it will also be necessary to defend the genealogy of Christ recorded by the apostle Matthew. Peter wrote that there would be false teachers come among us with heresies, but the word heresy is not necessarily a bad word, for Paul said at Acts 24:14:

“But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they [the “Jews”] call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets ...”

But Peter, at 2 Peter 2:1, speaks about heresy in a different vein:

“But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Sovereign that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.”

Now “damnable heresies” is quite another thing! It is my opinion that there are more “damnable heresies” floating around today than at any other time in history! And that includes many who profess to teach Israel Identity! Not that the doctrine of Israel Identity is a “damnable heresy”, but there are those within the movement who latch onto some particular passage of Scripture and attempt to twist it entirely out-of-context to suit their own egotism. These people usually consider they are doing God a favor, but the scheme they are promoting is only a product of their own pride! Once they set their compass in an erroneous direction, they will discredit every Scripture that agrees not with their play-pretty-premise.