Just what was it that Enki’s son was marked with after he killed Adam’s son?
In Genesis, Cain and Abel are presented as brothers. In the Sumerian chronicles, the source material for much of the Genesis story, they are set down as twins. Why did the Genesis writers choose to mis-characterise the relationship between the two siblings? Venturing a definitive answer to such a question is not easy as the whole gimmick is actually absurd considering that Abel, who was killed by his brother, did not have to be politically dissociated from the “wicked” Cain. He had no heirs who had to keep a wide berth from the taint of Cain.
What is apparent, nonetheless, is that the Genesis writers were not comfortable with associating Jewish posterity with Cain. And this had nothing to do with the fratricide against Abel. It all had to do with the fact that Cain was an Enkite, the son of Enki, who was branded and vilified as the evil Serpent by the Enlilites. On the other hand, the Genesis writers, the Levites, were Jewish, Enlil’s chosen people. As such, any relationship with the infamous Enkite Cain had to be avoided like the plague. You cannot be Enlil’s people and openly admit your roots are in fact predominantly Enkite.
Yet however hard the Jews tried to steer clear of the stain of Cain, they just could not cleanly dodge the connection. They were stuck with him come rain or shine. Why? Because Cain did succeed to Adapa’s throne as a true-blue bloodline. He was a leading light of the Holy Grail, the dynastic ruling line that stretched all the way from Adapa to Jesus Christ and well beyond. So to have totally sidestepped him would have rendered all the Jewish kings who followed after him, including David and Solomon, counterfeit.
Note that although Genesis does highlight the killing of Abel by his brother Cain, it does not demonise or blacklist him as such. The only people who do so are the prejudiced pulpit men. The fact of the matter is that Genesis actually exalts Cain even after the murder of his brother. The notion that Cain was cursed by “God” and bore the brunt of that curse forever is purely a figment of the pulpit men’s laughable imagination. It belongs to the refuse bin, to put it mildly.
CAIN AND ABEL COMMISSIONED INTO SERVICE
Although Adapa (Adam in the Bible) was ordained by King Anu to be the provisioner of the Anunnaki through the institution of agricultural activities, he did not embark on the enterprise himself. Enki had decided that that role was going to be effected by his sons Cain and Abel. So it was that when Cain and Abel came of age, they were officially commissioned into the task by the Anunnaki pantheon chaired by Enlil, the primary Jehovah/Yahweh of the Bible.
Since at age 12 the twins were still young anyway, they first had to be trained into their occupations. It was decided that Cain was to specialise in arable farming, whereas Abel was to specialise in pastoral agricultural. Cain was going to be mentored in his occupation by Ninurta, Enlil’s firstborn son, and Abel was going to be mentored by Marduk, Enki’s firstborn son. However, Marduk would be standing in for Dumuzi, who was away on planet Nibiru and was not expected for about 3600 Earth years, equivalent to 1 Nibiru year, known as a shar. The primary mandate of the twins was to produce food for the gods every Earth year in sufficient quantities. Each was given a minimum production target by Enlil, which they were to meet without fail.
On what basis was the specialisation decided? Why was Cain allotted farming and Abel shepherding? The Bible is silent on this, as if it was an arbitrary decision, but the more ancient records do intimate a raison d’être. In Anunnaki modus vivendi, everything had to be symbolically apt. It had to sync energetically, if you know what I mean. When you were a “tiller of the land,” like Cain was, it meant you had dominion over that land. As the heir to Adapa, Cain was Earth’s King-in-waiting.
Thus he had dominion over Earth. That’s the reason he was allotted a responsibility that dovetailed with land ownership. It explains why according to Sumerian records, Cain’s role was not restricted to farming. He also had responsibility over laying down and maintaining infrastructure. It was Cain who built dams, roads, and canals.
Whereas Cain was to set up his grain and horticultural farm around the Eridu within the broader Edin (Eden in the Bible), Abel’s animal domestication activities were to be conducted at the foot of the Cedar Mountains in today’s Lebanon. There, at the mountain summit, Ninurta had set up for him a “Creation Chamber” along the lines of Enki’s Bit Shimti facility in East Africa. Also called the “House of Fashioning”, the Creation Chamber was used to genetically engineer for-meat animals such as sheep, goats, and cattle as well as to improve strains over time through periodic genetic tinkering.
A few years later, the two had settled into their occupational rhythms and were ready to present the first fruits of their labour to Enlil, Earth’s Chief Executive. It seemed Abel the shepherd had worked harder than his older brother the ploughman. Consequently, Abel met his production target and Cain fell considerably short. Abel was therefore highly extolled by Enlil whereas Cain, though commended too for his efforts, was censured and told in no uncertain terms that he had to produce more grain to meet his production quota.
A highly combustible man, Cain was wroth. And not only that: he was rancorous. He had a lump in his throat. For to him, it was not simply about being out-produced by his younger brother. Over and above that, it was about the threat Abel now posed to his prospects for inheriting after Adapa, a fact even savants of ancient history seem wholly ignorant of.
ABEL IS SLAIN
In Genesis, we’re told that Cain moved to kill his brother out of sheer jealous, that he was envious that God had embraced Abel’s offering whereas his had been rejected. The Sumerian records on the other hand say Cain’s offering was accepted too though frowned upon. And it was not only envy that drove Cain to get rid of his brother, it turns out: dynastic politics was central to the whole intrigue.
At the time, Lilitu, Adapa’s highly conceited, seniormost Anunnaki wife, had left him, preferring instead to be a mistress of his father Enki. Enki, who had an Achilles penis, had eagerly obliged and had produced two children with her. They were Luluwa, also known as Awah, and Alimath, both of whom daughters. Although the two girls were genetically senior to Cain, they were female and so they posed no obstacle to Cain as heir to Adapa’s throne.
That left Abel as the only contender. In truth, Abel was not in contention at all: he was Cain’s junior and was by rights ineligible. Potentially though, he was a possible threat. Abel was a protégé of the Enlilites and the Enlilites wielded a lot of political power. They could easily manoeuvre Abel into contention on the pretext that he was more agriculturally productive and therefore more dutiful than Cain and thus snatch the crown from under Cain’s nose. It was out of fear of such an eventuality that Cain decided the only safe Abel was a dead one.
If Cain was to kill Abel, it was important that he uses tact, he reckoned. He could not simply bludgeon him to death on a whim: he had to allow hostilities to naturally arise and then capitalise on that to tear into his brother. Then once the deed was done, he would have the excuse that, “It was not premeditated murder: I did it in the emotion of the moment”.
Now, although the two brothers’ main theatres of operation were miles apart, they had small holdings somewhere in the Edin which adjoined each other. Cain’s was a beautiful meadow bristling with green pastures and Abel’s was a hay-stacked area within which flocks roamed about. One day when both Cain and Abel were at Edin, Cain received a report from his workers that Abel’s men were trespassing on his pastures as they drove the flocks to the canals. Cain decided this was the time to pounce.
He made a beeline for Abel’s fields and angrily confronted him for the highly provocative encroachment, demanding that he withdraws his flocks forthwith. A slanging match ensued, with each making a case for the instrumentality of his role in catering to the needs of the Anunnaki. “I am the one who abundance brings, who the Anunnaki satiates, who gives strength to the heroes, who wool for their clothing provides!” Abel boasted. Cain shot back thus: “It is I who the plains luxuriates, who furrows with grains makes heavy, in whose fields birds multiply, in whose canals fish become abundant: sustaining bread by me is produced, with fish and fowl the Anunnaki's diet I variate!”
As they altercated, a fist fight ensued and picking up a stone, Cain bashed his brother hard on the head and Abel fell limply to the ground. His workers immediately gathered around him and frantically tried mouth-to-mouth resuscitation. Meanwhile, a message was radioed to the Shuruppak health facility and a chopper was on its way over to airlift a comatose Abel. Ningishzidda was also sent for so that he could possibly do his “medical magic” in case all efforts at restoring Abel’s life proved futile. Sadly, Abel had suffered substantial and irreparable brain damage and there was nothing that could be done to bring him back to life.
CAIN SENTENCED TO A LIFE OF WANDERING
When Adapa and his wife Titi-Eve heard the news of Abel’s murder, they were gutted. Titi-Eve was inconsolable. An equally tenderhearted Enki wept like a baby. Marduk for one, who had mentored Abel, was incandescent with wrath. He wanted Cain slain on the spot. Enki and Adapa had to physically restrain him as he braced to take the law in his hands.
Thus far, Marduk was not aware that Adapa and Titi-Eve were in fact Enki’s children nor that Cain was his child too. Enki now decided to divulge the secret to him with a view to pacify him. In the event, Marduk was disarmed and jokingly teased his father that, “Of your lovemaking prowess much to me was rumoured, now of that convinced I am!”
The decision finally was that due process of law had to be followed. Cain had to be brought before the Anunnaki tribunal to face trial. In a paradoxical turn of events, Cain was genuinely remorseful of his brother’s killing, having sobered up after the fact. For days, he sat on the very spot at which he had killed his brother, regretting the barbarity of his actions. Maybe the abominable act ultimately served him well but the effect on his psyche would linger for long. Adapa and Titi-Eve mourned their son for 30 days, clad in sackclothes and ashes.
The judgement panel sat at Sippar, Utu-Shamash’s cult city. It was a seven-man bench, namely Enlil, his wife Ninlil, Ninurta, and Nannar-Sin of Enlil’s Lineage; Ninmah; and Enki, his wife Damkina, and Marduk from the Enkite clan. After deliberations that went on for days, judgement was passed.
First, a curse was pronounced on Cain by Enlil in his capacity as Earth’s Chief Executive for spilling the blood of his sibling. The sentence was banishment from the Edin. Cain was to go into exile and only be eligible to return after seven generations counting from Adapa. The number seven here is significant. First and foremost, it was both the number of planet Earth counting from Pluto and therefore the number of Enlil himself as head of the planet. Secondarily, it alluded to the number of people who presided over Cain’s case.
When Cain was given a chance to comment on his sentence as per the juridical procedure, he bemoaned the harshness of the punishment. He wondered aloud to the panel thus: what if during his wanderings somebody who wanted to avenge Abel’s death stalked him and struck him dead? Furthermore, did his banishment to the ends of the Earth mean he had also lost the right to inherit after Adapa?
The first concern was addressed by Enlil. Enlil told him he need not worry as anybody who would so much as lay a finger on him during his peregrinations would receive seven times the punishment Cain had received. That effectively amounted to capital punishment. The second question was addressed by Enki. Enki told his son that the right of succession did not have to be warranted: it was a right of primogeniture. One was born with it.
Therefore, Cain would remain heir to Adapa for as long as he, Cain, was alive. In the event that Adapa passed on, Cain’s son would ascend to the throne. In order to make it plain to everybody who encountered Cain anywhere that he was a King-in-waiting, Enki rose from his judgement seat and made his way into Cain’s dock. Then he made a declaration in relation to what would later become known as the Mark of Cain. Exactly what was this?
MARK OF CAIN WAS NO BLACK MARK
In every sermon belted out from Christian pulpits, the Mark of Cain is invariably described as a curse. The notion is absurd as the Bible itself says, in GENESIS 4:15, that, “Then the Lord put a mark on Cain so that no one who found him would kill him". The Mark of Cain was thus an insignia of protection: it was a preservative feature rather than a punitive measure. It was not a curse at all.
The curse was separate from the redemptive Mark of Cain. The curse is explained in GENESIS 4:11-12. It was expulsion from the Edin, the land where Cain had shed blood, and condemnation to a life of endless wondering into uncharted territory far and beyond. The Mark of Cain was meant to distinguish Cain for preservation during these wanderings. So exactly what was it?
The highly regarded Grail bloodline historian Laurence Gardner provides an answer that is corroborated by several other objective and meticulous sources thus: “As for the enigmatic mark placed upon Cain, this is probably the most important aspect of the story so far, because although not defined in the Bible, the Mark of Cain is the oldest recorded Grant of Arms in sovereign history.
In the Midrash and Phoenician traditions, the Mark of Cain is defined as being a cross within a circle. [Which is also the astronomical/astrological symbol for Earth.] It was, in principle, a graphic representation of kingship, which the Hebrews called the MalKhut (‘Kingdom’; from the Akkadian word malku = sovereign).”
As Crown Prince, Cain already had a mark that designated him as such, long before he killed Abel. This was a cross within a circle. The mark was also known as a Grant of Arms in that only a King or Crown Prince had the right to bear arms. In point of fact, all cultures of antiquity bore distinct birthmarks that defined their ancestry. In the African culture, these typically took the form of incisions on the face mainly but also on other parts of the body such as over the heart or between the shoulders. In the days of the Anunnaki, birthmarks took the form of tattoos as they had the technology to indelibly imprint them.
In those days, there was no DNA testing (among Earthlings) as we know it today. As such, they had to find a way of visually identifying somebody for who he claimed he was, particularly if he was a member of the nobility. If, for example, one claimed he was a Saili, he had to point to a mark on his body identifying him as a Saili.
Thus the Mark of Cain would identify Cain wherever he was on the globe that where he came from (that is, the Edin), he was actually a royal and a Crown Prince for that matter. That way, even if he met hostile people, he would be treated either respectfully or with great caution.
When Enki came down from the judgement seat to ratify Cain as Crown Prince, he was not bestowing on him the Right of Succession. He was confirming it – that it had by no means lapsed by forfeiture but was still in force and would always be in force. The Mark of Cain was an affirmation of an inborn right. It was not a stain or any such black mark.
The past week or two has been a mixed grill of briefs in so far as the national employment picture is concerned. BDC just injected a further P64 million in Kromberg & Schubert, the automotive cable manufacturer and exporter, to help keep it afloat in the face of the COVID-19-engendered global economic apocalypse. The financial lifeline, which follows an earlier P36 million way back in 2017, hopefully guarantees the jobs of 2500, maybe for another year or two.
It was also reported that a bulb manufacturing company, which is two years old and is youth-led, is making waves in Selibe Phikwe. Called Bulb Word, it is the only bulb manufacturing operation in Botswana and employs 60 people. The figure is not insignificant in a town that had 5000 jobs offloaded in one fell swoop when BCL closed shop in 2016 under seemingly contrived circumstances, so that as I write, two or three buyers have submitted bids to acquire and exhume it from its stage-managed grave.
Youngest Maccabees scion Jonathan takes over after Judas and leads for 18 years
Going hand-in-glove with the politics at play in Judea in the countdown to the AD era, General Atiku, was the contention for the priesthood. You will be aware, General, that politics and religion among the Jews interlocked. If there wasn’t a formal and sovereign Jewish King, there of necessity had to be a High Priest at any given point in time.
Initially, every High Priest was from the tribe of Levi as per the stipulation of the Torah. At some stage, however, colonisers of Judah imposed their own hand-picked High Priests who were not ethnic Levites. One such High Priest was Menelaus of the tribe of Benjamin.
Parliament has rejected a motion by Leader of Opposition (LOO) calling for the reversing of the recent appointments of ruling party activists to various Land Boards across the country. The motion also called for the appointment of young and qualified Batswana with tertiary education qualifications.
The ruling party could not allow that motion to be adopted for many reasons discussed below. Why did the LOO table this motion? Why was it negated? Why are Land Boards so important that a ruling party felt compelled to deploy its functionaries to the leadership and membership positions?
Prior to the motion, there was a LOO parliamentary question on these appointments. The Speaker threw a spanner in the works by ruling that availing a list of applicants to determine who qualified and who didn’t would violate the rights of those citizens. This has completely obliterated oversight attempts by Parliament on the matter.
How can parliament ascertain the veracity of the claim without the names of applicants? The opposition seeks to challenge this decision in court. It would also be difficult in the future for Ministers and government officials to obey instructions by investigative Parliamentary Committees to summon evidence which include list of persons. It would be a bad precedent if the decision is not reviewed and set aside by the Business Advisory Committee or a Court of law.
Prior to independence, Dikgosi allocated land for residential and agricultural purposes. At independence, land tenures in Botswana became freehold, state land and tribal land. Before 1968, tribal land, which is land belonging to different tribes, dating back to pre-independence, was allocated and administered by Dikgosi under Customary Law. Dikgosi are currently merely ‘land overseers’, a responsibility that can be delegated. Land overseers assist the Land Boards by confirming the vacancy or availability for occupation of land applied for.
Post-independence, the country was managed through modern law and customary law, a system developed during colonialism. Land was allocated for agricultural purposes such as ploughing and grazing and most importantly for residential use. Over time some land was allocated for commercial purpose. In terms of the law, sinking of boreholes and development of wells was permitted and farmers had some rights over such developed water resources.
Land Boards were established under Section 3 of the Tribal Land Act of 1968 with the intention to improve tribal land administration. Whilst the law was enacted in 1968, Land Boards started operating around 1970 under the Ministry of Local Government and Lands which was renamed Ministry of Lands and Housing (MLH) in 1999. These statutory bodies were a mechanism to also prune the powers of Dikgosi over tribal land. Currently, land issues fall under the Ministry of Land Management, Water and Sanitation Services.
There are 12 Main Land Boards, namely Ngwato, Kgatleng, Tlokweng, Tati, Chobe, Tawana, Malete, Rolong, Ghanzi, Kgalagadi, Kweneng and Ngwaketse Land Boards. The Tribal Land Act of 1968 as amended in 1994 provides that the Land Boards have the powers to rescind the grant of any rights to use any land, impose restrictions on land usage and facilitate any transfer or change of use of land.
Some land administration powers have been decentralized to sub land boards. The devolved powers include inter alia common law and customary law water rights and land applications, mining, evictions and dispute resolution. However, decisions can be appealed to the land board or to the Minister who is at the apex.
So, land boards are very powerful entities in the country’s local government system. Membership to these institutions is important not only because of monetary benefits of allowances but also the power of these bodies. in terms of the law, candidates for appointment to Land Boards or Subs should be residents of the tribal areas where appointments are sought, be holders of at least Junior Certificate and not actively involved in politics. The LOO contended that ruling party activists have been appointed in the recent appointments.
He argued that worse, some had no minimum qualifications required by the law and that some are not inhabitants of the tribal or sub tribal areas where they have been appointed. It was also pointed that some people appointed are septuagenarians and that younger qualified Batswana with degrees have been rejected.
Other arguments raised by the opposition in general were that the development was not unusual. That the ruling party is used to politically motivated appointments in parastatals, civil service, diplomatic missions, specially elected councilors and Members of Parliament (MPs), Bogosi and Land Boards. Usually these positions are distributed as patronage to activists in return for their support and loyalty to the political leadership and the party.
The ruling party contended that when the Minister or the Ministry intervened and ultimately appointed the Land Boards Chairpersons, Deputies and members , he didn’t have information, as this was not information required in the application, on who was politically active and for that reason he could not have known who to not appoint on that basis. They also argued that opposition activists have been appointed to positions in the government.
The counter argument was that there was a reason for the legal requirement of exclusion of political activists and that the government ought to have mechanisms to detect those. The whole argument of “‘we didn’t know who was politically active” was frivolous. The fact is that ruling party activists have been appointed. The opposition also argued that erstwhile activists from their ranks have been recruited through positions and that a few who are serving in public offices have either been bought or hold insignificant positions which they qualified for anyway.
Whilst people should not be excluded from public positions because of their political activism, the ruling party cannot hide the fact that they have used public positions to reward activists. Exclusion of political activists may be a violation of fundamental human or constitutional rights. But, the packing of Land Boards with the ruling party activists is clear political corruption. It seeks to sow divisions in communities and administer land in a politically biased manner.
It should be expected that the ruling party officials applying for land or change of land usage etcetera will be greatly assisted. Since land is wealth, the ruling party seeks to secure resources for its members and leaders. The appointments served to reward 2019 election primary and general elections losers and other activists who have shown loyalty to the leadership and the party.
Running a country like this has divided it in a way that may be difficult to undo. The next government may decide to reset the whole system by replacing many of government agencies leadership and management in a way that is political. In fact, it would be compelled to do so to cleanse the system.
The opposition is also pondering on approaching the courts for review of the decision to appoint party functionaries and the general violation of clearly stated terms of reference. If this can be established with evidence, the courts can set aside the decision on the basis that unqualified people have been appointed.
The political activism aspect may also not be difficult to prove as some of these people are known activists who are in party structures, at least at the time of appointment, and some were recently candidates. There is a needed for civil society organizations such as trade unions and political parties to fight some of these decisions through peaceful protests and courts.