Thanks for the response, Bill.
I think I initially got the idea that you were of the notion that the non-Adamic races were an offshoot of the resultant bastardization via the co-mingling of Adam-kind with the fallen angels from your essay entitled "Worshipping the Image of the Beast":
http://theblog.christogenea.org/?p=32. In the second paragraph, you mention that since an explicit answer to the origin of the non-Adamic races is not in the Bible, therefore, it can only be inferred. You write: "In the apocryphal Hebrew literature it is explained that a race of fallen “angels” went and mixed themselves with every kind of creature on the planet... Therefore it only follows that the non-Adamic races descended from these fallen “angels” and their violation of Yahweh’s (God’s) law of Kind after kind, which is so often repeated in the Book of Genesis." From there, I inferred that the non-Adamic races were a result of Adamic Man miscegenating with the satanic, or, demonic family 'Tree of Good and Evil', i.e. the fallen (aberrated) angel-kind. I have had some vague notions of this idea before, in the past, but, had never really articulated it or defined it well enough. But, when 2 Seedline is viewed from this perspective, as opposed to the "beast of the field (chay eretz)" theory, it really brings the entire 2 Seedline premise into sharp focus, at least, from my own point of view. Before, I perceived the Serpent Seed as consisting primarily of the descendants of the Cain-Canaanite-Jew lineage, with the other races being relatively innocent (in relation to the degree to which they had been miscegenated with the Cain/Jew seedline). But, when Adamic Man is viewed as the original creation (as in Gen. 1:26-27), and, the other races a corruption of this original prototype (as portended in Gen. 4:1), then the Two Seedline theory becomes crystal clear.
I have surveyed some of the literature extant on the Web, and elsewhere, regarding the "beast of the field" theory. It never really convinces me. For instance, the references to the verses you cited in favor of this theory in the aforementioned article, you refer to the term "beasts" cited in Genesis 9:5, Leviticus 20:15-16, and Hebrews 12:20. In my humble opnion, these terms are in reference to actual beasts, not pre-Adamic anthropoids. Genesis 9 is in reference to a beast which kills a man, that it should, likewise, be killed. That sort of reaction is not that out of the ordinary and can be seen occuring often in our modern era, whenever an animal mauls or kills a human being. Leviticus 20 is in reference to bestiality, and, without a doubt, anyone who fornicates with an animal should be taken out of the gene pool post haste. And, again, in Hebrews 12, it appears to be in reference to the prohibition of a beast, more than likely a domesticated animal belonging to the tribe, from trampling or befouling the holy site, which does not seem all that extreme, to me, to want to keep the horses and/or the cattle off of a holy site. I know there are countless other examples, some where "hands" or even intellect are attributed. But, I think some of these anthropomorphic attributes are more euphemistic than they are descriptive of actual biological characteristics. I could be wrong, though, and, remain open minded to the idea, but, have yet to be convinced of the validity of this theory. I am tending to believe that Adam is the prototypical Man and that the non-Adamites, of whatever variety, are derived from illicit misgenation via demonic entities, which are alluded to in the Tree of Good and Evil, as well as in Genesis 6:4.
One more brief note: In the "Overview - Genesis Chapter 2" essay, in the fifth paragraph, you write: "The “knowledge” of good and evil, without stretching the meaning of the original Hebrew word in any way, signifies the understanding or even the experience of good and evil." I am not arguing against what you are saying here. But, I have always believed that the "knowledge" of the Tree of Good & Evil goes beyond a mere intellectual "understanding" into something far more sinister & perverse. I contend that the "knowledge" of this "tree", or, species, or, race, is that of "knowing" in the classical Biblical sense, that is to have sexual intimacy with said species. And, this is exactly what Adam & Eve did; they "knew" the Serpent-kind in a sexual manner and in the process spawned the infamous mamzer known as "Cain" and his nefarious seedline. I believe that these personalities, such as Adam and Eve and Cain, etc., spoken of in Genesis, are not literal individuals, but, are parabolic, and give us a rough sketch of prehistoric events which occurred in the far distant past, preserved in these parables which have thus been passed down through the generations to us for our own personal edification and understanding.
Feel free to comment on or challenge anything I have said or even alluded to. I need to peruse some of Emahiser's works that you mentioned, as well as follow up some of the links cited in the Overview. I'm going to come back and pick your brain some more on some of these topics as questions or confusion arises. I appreciate all the work & study you have put into this site. It's one of the best I have encountered. Keep up the good work.
Later,
Dan