Comparison between 'to emit" and 'to emanate'

Question

I'd like to understand/ask how much these two words overlaps each other.

These definitions were excerpted from Oxford Dictionaries. Do you think we can replace the word with emit in these sentences? What I ask is that, for example, if we can say

" Wonderful smells were emitting from the kitchen."

or

"He emitting tranquility"

1.(Of a feeling, quality, or sensation) issue or spread out from (a source):

Warmth emanated from the fireplace

She felt an undeniable charm emanating from him

1.1Originate from; be produced by:

The proposals emanated from a committee

Angry ​voices ​emanated from the ​room. (Cambridge)

Wonderful smells were emanating from the kitchen. ( Logman)

1.2 [with object] Give out or emit (a feeling, quality, or sensation):

He emanated a powerful brooding air

He emanates tranquility. (Longman)

---

And secondly, I cannot understand noun form of the word 'to emanate'

1. Does "the risk of radon gas emanation" have the same meaning with " the risk of radon gas emission"

2. What does "The unique symbol for the comprehensive oneness that holds together this entire process of emanation or divinization is the concept of Sophia" mean in this sense?

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/emanation

Answer 1

I think the key distinction between emit and emanate is described pretty well in the definitions you provided: nature of the source or how it is handled. Emit implies a focused dispersion while emanate is more of a general one. For example, a sound as viewed from its source "emanates in all directions," but a microphone some distance away would "pick up the emitted sound." Thus, emit would not be a suitable replacement in the first two sentence examples because the implied nature of the smell and state of being is an omni-directional one.

As for emanation vs emission, the former carries all the connotations of the latter with the addition of a descriptor of the emission's nature: that it was omni-directional. A laser could be described as a particle emission but not a particle emanation.

The theological quote seems to use it to be describing a state of divinity so great so as to ooze from the entity/idea in question (not sure on context), but on that I'm less clear.