> http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/08/16/how-became-george-obama-brother/

> One of Obama’s favorite phrases comes right out of the Bible: “We are
> our brother’s keeper.”

Argh. No no no no no, this phrase does *not* come out of the Bible. The
Bible *never* says we are our "brother's keeper." The phrase comes up as
part of an ironic question asked by Cain as part of a rhetorical dodge,
and the whole *thrust* of Cain's question is that, of course, no, we are
*not* each other's zookeepers; we are *not* animals that need to be "kept"
by other people (or at any rate, *Abel* was not such an animal).

> A couple of years ago, George teamed up with a British journalist Damien
> Lewis and the two of them published George’s story in a book called
> "Homeland." Yet according to Lewis, shortly before the book’s
> publication in America, the publisher Simon & Schuster decided to shred
> the entire print run, more than 20,000 copies. Lewis tried
> unsuccessfully to get an explanation from Simon & Schuster but to no
> avail. He now suspects that the White House convinced Simon & Schuster
> that George’s story might prove embarrassing to the president.

Oooo, conspiracy!

--
http://groups.google.com/group/dadl-ot
)

> http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/08/16/how-became-george-obama-brother/

> One of Obama’s favorite phrases comes right out of the Bible: “We are
> our brother’s keeper.”

Argh. No no no no no, this phrase does *not* come out of the Bible. The
Bible *never* says we are our "brother's keeper." The phrase comes up as
part of an ironic question asked by Cain as part of a rhetorical dodge,
and the whole *thrust* of Cain's question is that, of course, no, we are
*not* each other's zookeepers; we are *not* animals that need to be "kept"
by other people (or at any rate, *Abel* was not such an animal).

> A couple of years ago, George teamed up with a British journalist Damien
> Lewis and the two of them published George’s story in a book called
> "Homeland." Yet according to Lewis, shortly before the book’s
> publication in America, the publisher Simon & Schuster decided to shred
> the entire print run, more than 20,000 copies. Lewis tried
> unsuccessfully to get an explanation from Simon & Schuster but to no
> avail. He now suspects that the White House convinced Simon & Schuster
> that George’s story might prove embarrassing to the president.

Oooo, conspiracy!

--
http://groups.google.com/group/dadl-ot
)
On Fri, 17 Aug 2012, Mike Findlay wrote:

>>> One of Obama’s favorite phrases comes right out of the Bible: “We are
>>> our brother’s keeper.”
>>
>> Argh. No no no no no, this phrase does *not* come out of the Bible.
>> The Bible *never* says we are our "brother's keeper." The phrase comes
>> up as part of an ironic question asked by Cain as part of a rhetorical
>> dodge, and the whole *thrust* of Cain's question is that, of course,
>> no, we are *not* each other's zookeepers; we are *not* animals that
>> need to be "kept" by other people (or at any rate, *Abel* was not such
>> an animal).
>
> Interesting. I'm sure D'Sousa was referencing the evangelical
> interpretation of that passage and Obama's/the left's usage of it to
> support govt. programs. I've heard in numerous situations (admittedly
> anecdotal) that passage being used to support the proposition that we
> are our brother's keeper and that Cain was displaying his selfish,
> disobedient nature when he answered God that way, especially since he
> knew where Abel was and he was being sarcastic with God.

The key point in that passage is that Cain has actively and personally
*killed* Abel, not that Cain hasn't been *looking after* Abel. And when
God, who already knows that Abel is dead, asks Cain where his brother is,
Cain dodges the question by saying he doesn't always know where Abel is
because he isn't Abel's "keeper".

It really kind of confounds me that almost nobody seems to realize how
implicitly *negative* the use of "keeper" is in that context. It's like
saying a person has "minders", or people who never let them alone.

It's an apt term for left-leaning nanny-state socialist types to use,
sure, but the fact that they seem to think the term will sound so
*positive* to everyone else -- and the fact that so many people *do* think
the term sounds positive -- just really kind of puzzles me.

> But am I correct in thinking from your statement that the translation of
> the original Hebrew lends (if not directly translates into) a husbandry
> connotation to the words Cain used?

The word "shamar" appears 468 times in the Hebrew Bible, according to
BlueLetterBible.org, and it is translated "keeper" 28 times, the first two
of which are:

-- Genesis 4:9 -- "Am I my brother's keeper?"

-- I Samuel 17:20 -- David rose up early in the morning, and left the
sheep with a keeper...

After that you get a lot of "keeper of the wardrobe" and "keeper of the
watch" and "keepers of the door" and stuff like that. Oh, and in Esther
2:3 and 2:8 and 2:15, the guy who runs the harem is the "keeper of the
women".

http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/translationResults.cfm?Criteria=keeper%2A+H8104&t=KJV

I suppose, if one wanted to be charitable, one could always say that we
are each other's "keepers" in the same way that the "keepers of the wall"
or "keepers of the door" are, i.e. we look out for each other, we watch
for trouble before it can affect each other, etc. But would Cain or Abel
have had any *concept* of a walled fortress with guards etc.?

It may or may not also be significant that Abel, the brother who had just
been killed by Cain, was himself a keeper of animals, and that it was
precisely the fact that Abel kept animals (and was loved by God for it, at
least when he offered them on an altar) that led to Cain's jealous act of
murder. Cain was not particularly fond of "keepers".

--
http://groups.google.com/group/dadl-ot
)

> http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/08/16/how-became-george-obama-brother/

> One of Obama’s favorite phrases comes right out of the Bible: “We are
> our brother’s keeper.”

Argh. No no no no no, this phrase does *not* come out of the Bible. The
Bible *never* says we are our "brother's keeper." The phrase comes up as
part of an ironic question asked by Cain as part of a rhetorical dodge,
and the whole *thrust* of Cain's question is that, of course, no, we are
*not* each other's zookeepers; we are *not* animals that need to be "kept"
by other people (or at any rate, *Abel* was not such an animal).

> A couple of years ago, George teamed up with a British journalist Damien
> Lewis and the two of them published George’s story in a book called
> "Homeland." Yet according to Lewis, shortly before the book’s
> publication in America, the publisher Simon & Schuster decided to shred
> the entire print run, more than 20,000 copies. Lewis tried
> unsuccessfully to get an explanation from Simon & Schuster but to no
> avail. He now suspects that the White House convinced Simon & Schuster
> that George’s story might prove embarrassing to the president.

Oooo, conspiracy!

--
http://groups.google.com/group/dadl-ot
)
On Fri, 17 Aug 2012, Mike Findlay wrote:

>>> One of Obama’s favorite phrases comes right out of the Bible: “We are
>>> our brother’s keeper.”
>>
>> Argh. No no no no no, this phrase does *not* come out of the Bible.
>> The Bible *never* says we are our "brother's keeper." The phrase comes
>> up as part of an ironic question asked by Cain as part of a rhetorical
>> dodge, and the whole *thrust* of Cain's question is that, of course,
>> no, we are *not* each other's zookeepers; we are *not* animals that
>> need to be "kept" by other people (or at any rate, *Abel* was not such
>> an animal).
>
> Interesting. I'm sure D'Sousa was referencing the evangelical
> interpretation of that passage and Obama's/the left's usage of it to
> support govt. programs. I've heard in numerous situations (admittedly
> anecdotal) that passage being used to support the proposition that we
> are our brother's keeper and that Cain was displaying his selfish,
> disobedient nature when he answered God that way, especially since he
> knew where Abel was and he was being sarcastic with God.

The key point in that passage is that Cain has actively and personally
*killed* Abel, not that Cain hasn't been *looking after* Abel. And when
God, who already knows that Abel is dead, asks Cain where his brother is,
Cain dodges the question by saying he doesn't always know where Abel is
because he isn't Abel's "keeper".

It really kind of confounds me that almost nobody seems to realize how
implicitly *negative* the use of "keeper" is in that context. It's like
saying a person has "minders", or people who never let them alone.

It's an apt term for left-leaning nanny-state socialist types to use,
sure, but the fact that they seem to think the term will sound so
*positive* to everyone else -- and the fact that so many people *do* think
the term sounds positive -- just really kind of puzzles me.

> But am I correct in thinking from your statement that the translation of
> the original Hebrew lends (if not directly translates into) a husbandry
> connotation to the words Cain used?

The word "shamar" appears 468 times in the Hebrew Bible, according to
BlueLetterBible.org, and it is translated "keeper" 28 times, the first two
of which are:

-- Genesis 4:9 -- "Am I my brother's keeper?"

-- I Samuel 17:20 -- David rose up early in the morning, and left the
sheep with a keeper...

After that you get a lot of "keeper of the wardrobe" and "keeper of the
watch" and "keepers of the door" and stuff like that. Oh, and in Esther
2:3 and 2:8 and 2:15, the guy who runs the harem is the "keeper of the
women".

http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/translationResults.cfm?Criteria=keeper%2A+H8104&t=KJV

I suppose, if one wanted to be charitable, one could always say that we
are each other's "keepers" in the same way that the "keepers of the wall"
or "keepers of the door" are, i.e. we look out for each other, we watch
for trouble before it can affect each other, etc. But would Cain or Abel
have had any *concept* of a walled fortress with guards etc.?

It may or may not also be significant that Abel, the brother who had just
been killed by Cain, was himself a keeper of animals, and that it was
precisely the fact that Abel kept animals (and was loved by God for it, at
least when he offered them on an altar) that led to Cain's jealous act of
murder. Cain was not particularly fond of "keepers".

--
http://groups.google.com/group/dadl-ot
)
On Fri, 17 Aug 2012, Mike Findlay wrote:
> It is also difficult for me not to wonder how this story would have been
> and/or being pursued if George W. Bush (what the heck make it current -
> Romney) had third cousins in living in such conditions.

I vaguely remember some people on the right talking about this during the
2008 election -- or was it one of Obama's *other* close relatives they
were talking about? Anyway, this isn't exactly new, but yeah, the media
didn't really play it up like they could have, four years ago.

--
http://groups.google.com/group/dadl-ot
)

> http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/08/16/how-became-george-obama-brother/

> One of Obama’s favorite phrases comes right out of the Bible: “We are
> our brother’s keeper.”

Argh. No no no no no, this phrase does *not* come out of the Bible. The
Bible *never* says we are our "brother's keeper." The phrase comes up as
part of an ironic question asked by Cain as part of a rhetorical dodge,
and the whole *thrust* of Cain's question is that, of course, no, we are
*not* each other's zookeepers; we are *not* animals that need to be "kept"
by other people (or at any rate, *Abel* was not such an animal).

> A couple of years ago, George teamed up with a British journalist Damien
> Lewis and the two of them published George’s story in a book called
> "Homeland." Yet according to Lewis, shortly before the book’s
> publication in America, the publisher Simon & Schuster decided to shred
> the entire print run, more than 20,000 copies. Lewis tried
> unsuccessfully to get an explanation from Simon & Schuster but to no
> avail. He now suspects that the White House convinced Simon & Schuster
> that George’s story might prove embarrassing to the president.

Oooo, conspiracy!

--
http://groups.google.com/group/dadl-ot
)
On Fri, 17 Aug 2012, Mike Findlay wrote:

>>> One of Obama’s favorite phrases comes right out of the Bible: “We are
>>> our brother’s keeper.”
>>
>> Argh. No no no no no, this phrase does *not* come out of the Bible.
>> The Bible *never* says we are our "brother's keeper." The phrase comes
>> up as part of an ironic question asked by Cain as part of a rhetorical
>> dodge, and the whole *thrust* of Cain's question is that, of course,
>> no, we are *not* each other's zookeepers; we are *not* animals that
>> need to be "kept" by other people (or at any rate, *Abel* was not such
>> an animal).
>
> Interesting. I'm sure D'Sousa was referencing the evangelical
> interpretation of that passage and Obama's/the left's usage of it to
> support govt. programs. I've heard in numerous situations (admittedly
> anecdotal) that passage being used to support the proposition that we
> are our brother's keeper and that Cain was displaying his selfish,
> disobedient nature when he answered God that way, especially since he
> knew where Abel was and he was being sarcastic with God.

The key point in that passage is that Cain has actively and personally
*killed* Abel, not that Cain hasn't been *looking after* Abel. And when
God, who already knows that Abel is dead, asks Cain where his brother is,
Cain dodges the question by saying he doesn't always know where Abel is
because he isn't Abel's "keeper".

It really kind of confounds me that almost nobody seems to realize how
implicitly *negative* the use of "keeper" is in that context. It's like
saying a person has "minders", or people who never let them alone.

It's an apt term for left-leaning nanny-state socialist types to use,
sure, but the fact that they seem to think the term will sound so
*positive* to everyone else -- and the fact that so many people *do* think
the term sounds positive -- just really kind of puzzles me.

> But am I correct in thinking from your statement that the translation of
> the original Hebrew lends (if not directly translates into) a husbandry
> connotation to the words Cain used?

The word "shamar" appears 468 times in the Hebrew Bible, according to
BlueLetterBible.org, and it is translated "keeper" 28 times, the first two
of which are:

-- Genesis 4:9 -- "Am I my brother's keeper?"

-- I Samuel 17:20 -- David rose up early in the morning, and left the
sheep with a keeper...

After that you get a lot of "keeper of the wardrobe" and "keeper of the
watch" and "keepers of the door" and stuff like that. Oh, and in Esther
2:3 and 2:8 and 2:15, the guy who runs the harem is the "keeper of the
women".

http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/translationResults.cfm?Criteria=keeper%2A+H8104&t=KJV

I suppose, if one wanted to be charitable, one could always say that we
are each other's "keepers" in the same way that the "keepers of the wall"
or "keepers of the door" are, i.e. we look out for each other, we watch
for trouble before it can affect each other, etc. But would Cain or Abel
have had any *concept* of a walled fortress with guards etc.?

It may or may not also be significant that Abel, the brother who had just
been killed by Cain, was himself a keeper of animals, and that it was
precisely the fact that Abel kept animals (and was loved by God for it, at
least when he offered them on an altar) that led to Cain's jealous act of
murder. Cain was not particularly fond of "keepers".

--
http://groups.google.com/group/dadl-ot
)
On Fri, 17 Aug 2012, Mike Findlay wrote:
> It is also difficult for me not to wonder how this story would have been
> and/or being pursued if George W. Bush (what the heck make it current -
> Romney) had third cousins in living in such conditions.

I vaguely remember some people on the right talking about this during the
2008 election -- or was it one of Obama's *other* close relatives they
were talking about? Anyway, this isn't exactly new, but yeah, the media
didn't really play it up like they could have, four years ago.

--
http://groups.google.com/group/dadl-ot
)
On Fri, 17 Aug 2012, Bruce Geerdes wrote:

>> It really kind of confounds me that almost nobody seems to realize how
>> implicitly *negative* the use of "keeper" is in that context.
>
> "Negative" in the words of a murderer, hence actually "positive". :)

Bah!

--
http://groups.google.com/group/dadl-ot
)

> http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/08/16/how-became-george-obama-brother/

> One of Obama’s favorite phrases comes right out of the Bible: “We are
> our brother’s keeper.”

Argh. No no no no no, this phrase does *not* come out of the Bible. The
Bible *never* says we are our "brother's keeper." The phrase comes up as
part of an ironic question asked by Cain as part of a rhetorical dodge,
and the whole *thrust* of Cain's question is that, of course, no, we are
*not* each other's zookeepers; we are *not* animals that need to be "kept"
by other people (or at any rate, *Abel* was not such an animal).

> A couple of years ago, George teamed up with a British journalist Damien
> Lewis and the two of them published George’s story in a book called
> "Homeland." Yet according to Lewis, shortly before the book’s
> publication in America, the publisher Simon & Schuster decided to shred
> the entire print run, more than 20,000 copies. Lewis tried
> unsuccessfully to get an explanation from Simon & Schuster but to no
> avail. He now suspects that the White House convinced Simon & Schuster
> that George’s story might prove embarrassing to the president.

Oooo, conspiracy!

--
http://groups.google.com/group/dadl-ot
)
On Fri, 17 Aug 2012, Mike Findlay wrote:

>>> One of Obama’s favorite phrases comes right out of the Bible: “We are
>>> our brother’s keeper.”
>>
>> Argh. No no no no no, this phrase does *not* come out of the Bible.
>> The Bible *never* says we are our "brother's keeper." The phrase comes
>> up as part of an ironic question asked by Cain as part of a rhetorical
>> dodge, and the whole *thrust* of Cain's question is that, of course,
>> no, we are *not* each other's zookeepers; we are *not* animals that
>> need to be "kept" by other people (or at any rate, *Abel* was not such
>> an animal).
>
> Interesting. I'm sure D'Sousa was referencing the evangelical
> interpretation of that passage and Obama's/the left's usage of it to
> support govt. programs. I've heard in numerous situations (admittedly
> anecdotal) that passage being used to support the proposition that we
> are our brother's keeper and that Cain was displaying his selfish,
> disobedient nature when he answered God that way, especially since he
> knew where Abel was and he was being sarcastic with God.

The key point in that passage is that Cain has actively and personally
*killed* Abel, not that Cain hasn't been *looking after* Abel. And when
God, who already knows that Abel is dead, asks Cain where his brother is,
Cain dodges the question by saying he doesn't always know where Abel is
because he isn't Abel's "keeper".

It really kind of confounds me that almost nobody seems to realize how
implicitly *negative* the use of "keeper" is in that context. It's like
saying a person has "minders", or people who never let them alone.

It's an apt term for left-leaning nanny-state socialist types to use,
sure, but the fact that they seem to think the term will sound so
*positive* to everyone else -- and the fact that so many people *do* think
the term sounds positive -- just really kind of puzzles me.

> But am I correct in thinking from your statement that the translation of
> the original Hebrew lends (if not directly translates into) a husbandry
> connotation to the words Cain used?

The word "shamar" appears 468 times in the Hebrew Bible, according to
BlueLetterBible.org, and it is translated "keeper" 28 times, the first two
of which are:

-- Genesis 4:9 -- "Am I my brother's keeper?"

-- I Samuel 17:20 -- David rose up early in the morning, and left the
sheep with a keeper...

After that you get a lot of "keeper of the wardrobe" and "keeper of the
watch" and "keepers of the door" and stuff like that. Oh, and in Esther
2:3 and 2:8 and 2:15, the guy who runs the harem is the "keeper of the
women".

http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/translationResults.cfm?Criteria=keeper%2A+H8104&t=KJV

I suppose, if one wanted to be charitable, one could always say that we
are each other's "keepers" in the same way that the "keepers of the wall"
or "keepers of the door" are, i.e. we look out for each other, we watch
for trouble before it can affect each other, etc. But would Cain or Abel
have had any *concept* of a walled fortress with guards etc.?

It may or may not also be significant that Abel, the brother who had just
been killed by Cain, was himself a keeper of animals, and that it was
precisely the fact that Abel kept animals (and was loved by God for it, at
least when he offered them on an altar) that led to Cain's jealous act of
murder. Cain was not particularly fond of "keepers".

--
http://groups.google.com/group/dadl-ot
)
On Fri, 17 Aug 2012, Mike Findlay wrote:
> It is also difficult for me not to wonder how this story would have been
> and/or being pursued if George W. Bush (what the heck make it current -
> Romney) had third cousins in living in such conditions.

I vaguely remember some people on the right talking about this during the
2008 election -- or was it one of Obama's *other* close relatives they
were talking about? Anyway, this isn't exactly new, but yeah, the media
didn't really play it up like they could have, four years ago.

--
http://groups.google.com/group/dadl-ot
)
On Fri, 17 Aug 2012, Bruce Geerdes wrote:

>> It really kind of confounds me that almost nobody seems to realize how
>> implicitly *negative* the use of "keeper" is in that context.
>
> "Negative" in the words of a murderer, hence actually "positive". :)

Bah!

--
http://groups.google.com/group/dadl-ot
)
On Fri, 17 Aug 2012, Mike Findlay wrote:
> As usual you are a fount of information Peter, thanks.

Thanks, and yer welcome.

> Keeping with the evangelical tradition of the literal interpretation of
> the events in Genesis as being historical instead of
> mythical/allegorical (I want to believe much of it is historical but
> have no problem believing it is mythical) I wonder if God intentionally
> used a double entendre to pose that very question. However, Cain having
> just killed his brother and wanting to avoid the subject, answered in
> the very literal sense, unable to even grasp or come to terms with the
> alternative, albeit more subtle meaning.

But God doesn't use the term *at all*, neither as a double entendre nor as
anything else. The term is Cain's, all Cain's.

And the Lord said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I
know not: Am I my brother's keeper?

That's all God asks: where's your brother? The "keeper" business is just
something that Cain comes up with to dodge the question. And God isn't
fooled at all, because he immediately replies that he hears Abel's blood
crying to him from the ground, etc. I've heard some people argue that God
effectively replies to Cain, "Yes, you *are* your brother's keeper", but,
um, no, God doesn't pay *any* attention to Cain's rhetoric there.

--
http://groups.google.com/group/dadl-ot
)

> http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/08/16/how-became-george-obama-brother/

> One of Obama’s favorite phrases comes right out of the Bible: “We are
> our brother’s keeper.”

Argh. No no no no no, this phrase does *not* come out of the Bible. The
Bible *never* says we are our "brother's keeper." The phrase comes up as
part of an ironic question asked by Cain as part of a rhetorical dodge,
and the whole *thrust* of Cain's question is that, of course, no, we are
*not* each other's zookeepers; we are *not* animals that need to be "kept"
by other people (or at any rate, *Abel* was not such an animal).

> A couple of years ago, George teamed up with a British journalist Damien
> Lewis and the two of them published George’s story in a book called
> "Homeland." Yet according to Lewis, shortly before the book’s
> publication in America, the publisher Simon & Schuster decided to shred
> the entire print run, more than 20,000 copies. Lewis tried
> unsuccessfully to get an explanation from Simon & Schuster but to no
> avail. He now suspects that the White House convinced Simon & Schuster
> that George’s story might prove embarrassing to the president.

Oooo, conspiracy!

--
http://groups.google.com/group/dadl-ot
)
On Fri, 17 Aug 2012, Mike Findlay wrote:

>>> One of Obama’s favorite phrases comes right out of the Bible: “We are
>>> our brother’s keeper.”
>>
>> Argh. No no no no no, this phrase does *not* come out of the Bible.
>> The Bible *never* says we are our "brother's keeper." The phrase comes
>> up as part of an ironic question asked by Cain as part of a rhetorical
>> dodge, and the whole *thrust* of Cain's question is that, of course,
>> no, we are *not* each other's zookeepers; we are *not* animals that
>> need to be "kept" by other people (or at any rate, *Abel* was not such
>> an animal).
>
> Interesting. I'm sure D'Sousa was referencing the evangelical
> interpretation of that passage and Obama's/the left's usage of it to
> support govt. programs. I've heard in numerous situations (admittedly
> anecdotal) that passage being used to support the proposition that we
> are our brother's keeper and that Cain was displaying his selfish,
> disobedient nature when he answered God that way, especially since he
> knew where Abel was and he was being sarcastic with God.

The key point in that passage is that Cain has actively and personally
*killed* Abel, not that Cain hasn't been *looking after* Abel. And when
God, who already knows that Abel is dead, asks Cain where his brother is,
Cain dodges the question by saying he doesn't always know where Abel is
because he isn't Abel's "keeper".

It really kind of confounds me that almost nobody seems to realize how
implicitly *negative* the use of "keeper" is in that context. It's like
saying a person has "minders", or people who never let them alone.

It's an apt term for left-leaning nanny-state socialist types to use,
sure, but the fact that they seem to think the term will sound so
*positive* to everyone else -- and the fact that so many people *do* think
the term sounds positive -- just really kind of puzzles me.

> But am I correct in thinking from your statement that the translation of
> the original Hebrew lends (if not directly translates into) a husbandry
> connotation to the words Cain used?

The word "shamar" appears 468 times in the Hebrew Bible, according to
BlueLetterBible.org, and it is translated "keeper" 28 times, the first two
of which are:

-- Genesis 4:9 -- "Am I my brother's keeper?"

-- I Samuel 17:20 -- David rose up early in the morning, and left the
sheep with a keeper...

After that you get a lot of "keeper of the wardrobe" and "keeper of the
watch" and "keepers of the door" and stuff like that. Oh, and in Esther
2:3 and 2:8 and 2:15, the guy who runs the harem is the "keeper of the
women".

http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/translationResults.cfm?Criteria=keeper%2A+H8104&t=KJV

I suppose, if one wanted to be charitable, one could always say that we
are each other's "keepers" in the same way that the "keepers of the wall"
or "keepers of the door" are, i.e. we look out for each other, we watch
for trouble before it can affect each other, etc. But would Cain or Abel
have had any *concept* of a walled fortress with guards etc.?

It may or may not also be significant that Abel, the brother who had just
been killed by Cain, was himself a keeper of animals, and that it was
precisely the fact that Abel kept animals (and was loved by God for it, at
least when he offered them on an altar) that led to Cain's jealous act of
murder. Cain was not particularly fond of "keepers".

--
http://groups.google.com/group/dadl-ot
)
On Fri, 17 Aug 2012, Mike Findlay wrote:
> It is also difficult for me not to wonder how this story would have been
> and/or being pursued if George W. Bush (what the heck make it current -
> Romney) had third cousins in living in such conditions.

I vaguely remember some people on the right talking about this during the
2008 election -- or was it one of Obama's *other* close relatives they
were talking about? Anyway, this isn't exactly new, but yeah, the media
didn't really play it up like they could have, four years ago.

--
http://groups.google.com/group/dadl-ot
)
On Fri, 17 Aug 2012, Bruce Geerdes wrote:

>> It really kind of confounds me that almost nobody seems to realize how
>> implicitly *negative* the use of "keeper" is in that context.
>
> "Negative" in the words of a murderer, hence actually "positive". :)

Bah!

--
http://groups.google.com/group/dadl-ot
)
On Fri, 17 Aug 2012, Mike Findlay wrote:
> As usual you are a fount of information Peter, thanks.

Thanks, and yer welcome.

> Keeping with the evangelical tradition of the literal interpretation of
> the events in Genesis as being historical instead of
> mythical/allegorical (I want to believe much of it is historical but
> have no problem believing it is mythical) I wonder if God intentionally
> used a double entendre to pose that very question. However, Cain having
> just killed his brother and wanting to avoid the subject, answered in
> the very literal sense, unable to even grasp or come to terms with the
> alternative, albeit more subtle meaning.

But God doesn't use the term *at all*, neither as a double entendre nor as
anything else. The term is Cain's, all Cain's.

And the Lord said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I
know not: Am I my brother's keeper?

That's all God asks: where's your brother? The "keeper" business is just
something that Cain comes up with to dodge the question. And God isn't
fooled at all, because he immediately replies that he hears Abel's blood
crying to him from the ground, etc. I've heard some people argue that God
effectively replies to Cain, "Yes, you *are* your brother's keeper", but,
um, no, God doesn't pay *any* attention to Cain's rhetoric there.

--
http://groups.google.com/group/dadl-ot
)
On Fri, 17 Aug 2012, MartyB wrote:

>> The key point in that passage is that Cain has actively and personally
>> *killed* Abel, not that Cain hasn't been *looking after* Abel. And
>> when God, who already knows that Abel is dead, asks Cain where his
>> brother is, Cain dodges the question by saying he doesn't always know
>> where Abel is because he isn't Abel's "keeper".
>
> I always took it as the kind of thing a kid says trying to dodge
> responsability for something ("It's not my job" or " that's not what you
> said"). In this case, it is even more ironic because Cain *was*
> responsible for Able being dead.

Oh, absolutely. None of that addresses the question of what the term Cain
used actually *means*, though.

> No mention of (semi-on Topic warning) "Keeper of the Bear" ? :-)

Um, not familiar with that term (or why it would be semi-on Topic).

--
http://groups.google.com/group/dadl-ot
)

> http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/08/16/how-became-george-obama-brother/

> One of Obama’s favorite phrases comes right out of the Bible: “We are
> our brother’s keeper.”

Argh. No no no no no, this phrase does *not* come out of the Bible. The
Bible *never* says we are our "brother's keeper." The phrase comes up as
part of an ironic question asked by Cain as part of a rhetorical dodge,
and the whole *thrust* of Cain's question is that, of course, no, we are
*not* each other's zookeepers; we are *not* animals that need to be "kept"
by other people (or at any rate, *Abel* was not such an animal).

> A couple of years ago, George teamed up with a British journalist Damien
> Lewis and the two of them published George’s story in a book called
> "Homeland." Yet according to Lewis, shortly before the book’s
> publication in America, the publisher Simon & Schuster decided to shred
> the entire print run, more than 20,000 copies. Lewis tried
> unsuccessfully to get an explanation from Simon & Schuster but to no
> avail. He now suspects that the White House convinced Simon & Schuster
> that George’s story might prove embarrassing to the president.

Oooo, conspiracy!

--
http://groups.google.com/group/dadl-ot
)
On Fri, 17 Aug 2012, Mike Findlay wrote:

>>> One of Obama’s favorite phrases comes right out of the Bible: “We are
>>> our brother’s keeper.”
>>
>> Argh. No no no no no, this phrase does *not* come out of the Bible.
>> The Bible *never* says we are our "brother's keeper." The phrase comes
>> up as part of an ironic question asked by Cain as part of a rhetorical
>> dodge, and the whole *thrust* of Cain's question is that, of course,
>> no, we are *not* each other's zookeepers; we are *not* animals that
>> need to be "kept" by other people (or at any rate, *Abel* was not such
>> an animal).
>
> Interesting. I'm sure D'Sousa was referencing the evangelical
> interpretation of that passage and Obama's/the left's usage of it to
> support govt. programs. I've heard in numerous situations (admittedly
> anecdotal) that passage being used to support the proposition that we
> are our brother's keeper and that Cain was displaying his selfish,
> disobedient nature when he answered God that way, especially since he
> knew where Abel was and he was being sarcastic with God.

The key point in that passage is that Cain has actively and personally
*killed* Abel, not that Cain hasn't been *looking after* Abel. And when
God, who already knows that Abel is dead, asks Cain where his brother is,
Cain dodges the question by saying he doesn't always know where Abel is
because he isn't Abel's "keeper".

It really kind of confounds me that almost nobody seems to realize how
implicitly *negative* the use of "keeper" is in that context. It's like
saying a person has "minders", or people who never let them alone.

It's an apt term for left-leaning nanny-state socialist types to use,
sure, but the fact that they seem to think the term will sound so
*positive* to everyone else -- and the fact that so many people *do* think
the term sounds positive -- just really kind of puzzles me.

> But am I correct in thinking from your statement that the translation of
> the original Hebrew lends (if not directly translates into) a husbandry
> connotation to the words Cain used?

The word "shamar" appears 468 times in the Hebrew Bible, according to
BlueLetterBible.org, and it is translated "keeper" 28 times, the first two
of which are:

-- Genesis 4:9 -- "Am I my brother's keeper?"

-- I Samuel 17:20 -- David rose up early in the morning, and left the
sheep with a keeper...

After that you get a lot of "keeper of the wardrobe" and "keeper of the
watch" and "keepers of the door" and stuff like that. Oh, and in Esther
2:3 and 2:8 and 2:15, the guy who runs the harem is the "keeper of the
women".

http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/translationResults.cfm?Criteria=keeper%2A+H8104&t=KJV

I suppose, if one wanted to be charitable, one could always say that we
are each other's "keepers" in the same way that the "keepers of the wall"
or "keepers of the door" are, i.e. we look out for each other, we watch
for trouble before it can affect each other, etc. But would Cain or Abel
have had any *concept* of a walled fortress with guards etc.?

It may or may not also be significant that Abel, the brother who had just
been killed by Cain, was himself a keeper of animals, and that it was
precisely the fact that Abel kept animals (and was loved by God for it, at
least when he offered them on an altar) that led to Cain's jealous act of
murder. Cain was not particularly fond of "keepers".

--
http://groups.google.com/group/dadl-ot
)
On Fri, 17 Aug 2012, Mike Findlay wrote:
> It is also difficult for me not to wonder how this story would have been
> and/or being pursued if George W. Bush (what the heck make it current -
> Romney) had third cousins in living in such conditions.

I vaguely remember some people on the right talking about this during the
2008 election -- or was it one of Obama's *other* close relatives they
were talking about? Anyway, this isn't exactly new, but yeah, the media
didn't really play it up like they could have, four years ago.

--
http://groups.google.com/group/dadl-ot
)
On Fri, 17 Aug 2012, Bruce Geerdes wrote:

>> It really kind of confounds me that almost nobody seems to realize how
>> implicitly *negative* the use of "keeper" is in that context.
>
> "Negative" in the words of a murderer, hence actually "positive". :)

Bah!

--
http://groups.google.com/group/dadl-ot
)
On Fri, 17 Aug 2012, Mike Findlay wrote:
> As usual you are a fount of information Peter, thanks.

Thanks, and yer welcome.

> Keeping with the evangelical tradition of the literal interpretation of
> the events in Genesis as being historical instead of
> mythical/allegorical (I want to believe much of it is historical but
> have no problem believing it is mythical) I wonder if God intentionally
> used a double entendre to pose that very question. However, Cain having
> just killed his brother and wanting to avoid the subject, answered in
> the very literal sense, unable to even grasp or come to terms with the
> alternative, albeit more subtle meaning.

But God doesn't use the term *at all*, neither as a double entendre nor as
anything else. The term is Cain's, all Cain's.

And the Lord said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I
know not: Am I my brother's keeper?

That's all God asks: where's your brother? The "keeper" business is just
something that Cain comes up with to dodge the question. And God isn't
fooled at all, because he immediately replies that he hears Abel's blood
crying to him from the ground, etc. I've heard some people argue that God
effectively replies to Cain, "Yes, you *are* your brother's keeper", but,
um, no, God doesn't pay *any* attention to Cain's rhetoric there.

--
http://groups.google.com/group/dadl-ot
)
On Fri, 17 Aug 2012, MartyB wrote:

>> The key point in that passage is that Cain has actively and personally
>> *killed* Abel, not that Cain hasn't been *looking after* Abel. And
>> when God, who already knows that Abel is dead, asks Cain where his
>> brother is, Cain dodges the question by saying he doesn't always know
>> where Abel is because he isn't Abel's "keeper".
>
> I always took it as the kind of thing a kid says trying to dodge
> responsability for something ("It's not my job" or " that's not what you
> said"). In this case, it is even more ironic because Cain *was*
> responsible for Able being dead.

Oh, absolutely. None of that addresses the question of what the term Cain
used actually *means*, though.

> No mention of (semi-on Topic warning) "Keeper of the Bear" ? :-)

Um, not familiar with that term (or why it would be semi-on Topic).

--
http://groups.google.com/group/dadl-ot
)
Keeper of the bear was a hidden track on Stonehill's Thirst cd.

-----Original Message-----
From: dadl- [mailto:dadl-] On Behalf
Of Peter T. Chattaway
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2012 10:59 AM
To: dadl-
Subject: Re: [DADL-OT] How I became George Obama's 'brother'

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012, MartyB wrote:

>> The key point in that passage is that Cain has actively and
>> personally
>> *killed* Abel, not that Cain hasn't been *looking after* Abel. And
>> when God, who already knows that Abel is dead, asks Cain where his
>> brother is, Cain dodges the question by saying he doesn't always know
>> where Abel is because he isn't Abel's "keeper".
>
> I always took it as the kind of thing a kid says trying to dodge
> responsability for something ("It's not my job" or " that's not what
> you said"). In this case, it is even more ironic because Cain *was*
> responsible for Able being dead.

Oh, absolutely. None of that addresses the question of what the term Cain
used actually *means*, though.

> No mention of (semi-on Topic warning) "Keeper of the Bear" ? :-)

Um, not familiar with that term (or why it would be semi-on Topic).

--
http://groups.google.com/group/dadl-ot

--
http://groups.google.com/group/dadl-ot
)

> http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/08/16/how-became-george-obama-brother/

> One of Obama’s favorite phrases comes right out of the Bible: “We are
> our brother’s keeper.”

Argh. No no no no no, this phrase does *not* come out of the Bible. The
Bible *never* says we are our "brother's keeper." The phrase comes up as
part of an ironic question asked by Cain as part of a rhetorical dodge,
and the whole *thrust* of Cain's question is that, of course, no, we are
*not* each other's zookeepers; we are *not* animals that need to be "kept"
by other people (or at any rate, *Abel* was not such an animal).

> A couple of years ago, George teamed up with a British journalist Damien
> Lewis and the two of them published George’s story in a book called
> "Homeland." Yet according to Lewis, shortly before the book’s
> publication in America, the publisher Simon & Schuster decided to shred
> the entire print run, more than 20,000 copies. Lewis tried
> unsuccessfully to get an explanation from Simon & Schuster but to no
> avail. He now suspects that the White House convinced Simon & Schuster
> that George’s story might prove embarrassing to the president.

Oooo, conspiracy!

--
http://groups.google.com/group/dadl-ot
)
On Fri, 17 Aug 2012, Mike Findlay wrote:

>>> One of Obama’s favorite phrases comes right out of the Bible: “We are
>>> our brother’s keeper.”
>>
>> Argh. No no no no no, this phrase does *not* come out of the Bible.
>> The Bible *never* says we are our "brother's keeper." The phrase comes
>> up as part of an ironic question asked by Cain as part of a rhetorical
>> dodge, and the whole *thrust* of Cain's question is that, of course,
>> no, we are *not* each other's zookeepers; we are *not* animals that
>> need to be "kept" by other people (or at any rate, *Abel* was not such
>> an animal).
>
> Interesting. I'm sure D'Sousa was referencing the evangelical
> interpretation of that passage and Obama's/the left's usage of it to
> support govt. programs. I've heard in numerous situations (admittedly
> anecdotal) that passage being used to support the proposition that we
> are our brother's keeper and that Cain was displaying his selfish,
> disobedient nature when he answered God that way, especially since he
> knew where Abel was and he was being sarcastic with God.

The key point in that passage is that Cain has actively and personally
*killed* Abel, not that Cain hasn't been *looking after* Abel. And when
God, who already knows that Abel is dead, asks Cain where his brother is,
Cain dodges the question by saying he doesn't always know where Abel is
because he isn't Abel's "keeper".

It really kind of confounds me that almost nobody seems to realize how
implicitly *negative* the use of "keeper" is in that context. It's like
saying a person has "minders", or people who never let them alone.

It's an apt term for left-leaning nanny-state socialist types to use,
sure, but the fact that they seem to think the term will sound so
*positive* to everyone else -- and the fact that so many people *do* think
the term sounds positive -- just really kind of puzzles me.

> But am I correct in thinking from your statement that the translation of
> the original Hebrew lends (if not directly translates into) a husbandry
> connotation to the words Cain used?

The word "shamar" appears 468 times in the Hebrew Bible, according to
BlueLetterBible.org, and it is translated "keeper" 28 times, the first two
of which are:

-- Genesis 4:9 -- "Am I my brother's keeper?"

-- I Samuel 17:20 -- David rose up early in the morning, and left the
sheep with a keeper...

After that you get a lot of "keeper of the wardrobe" and "keeper of the
watch" and "keepers of the door" and stuff like that. Oh, and in Esther
2:3 and 2:8 and 2:15, the guy who runs the harem is the "keeper of the
women".

http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/translationResults.cfm?Criteria=keeper%2A+H8104&t=KJV

I suppose, if one wanted to be charitable, one could always say that we
are each other's "keepers" in the same way that the "keepers of the wall"
or "keepers of the door" are, i.e. we look out for each other, we watch
for trouble before it can affect each other, etc. But would Cain or Abel
have had any *concept* of a walled fortress with guards etc.?

It may or may not also be significant that Abel, the brother who had just
been killed by Cain, was himself a keeper of animals, and that it was
precisely the fact that Abel kept animals (and was loved by God for it, at
least when he offered them on an altar) that led to Cain's jealous act of
murder. Cain was not particularly fond of "keepers".

--
http://groups.google.com/group/dadl-ot
)
On Fri, 17 Aug 2012, Mike Findlay wrote:
> It is also difficult for me not to wonder how this story would have been
> and/or being pursued if George W. Bush (what the heck make it current -
> Romney) had third cousins in living in such conditions.

I vaguely remember some people on the right talking about this during the
2008 election -- or was it one of Obama's *other* close relatives they
were talking about? Anyway, this isn't exactly new, but yeah, the media
didn't really play it up like they could have, four years ago.

--
http://groups.google.com/group/dadl-ot
)
On Fri, 17 Aug 2012, Bruce Geerdes wrote:

>> It really kind of confounds me that almost nobody seems to realize how
>> implicitly *negative* the use of "keeper" is in that context.
>
> "Negative" in the words of a murderer, hence actually "positive". :)

Bah!

--
http://groups.google.com/group/dadl-ot
)
On Fri, 17 Aug 2012, Mike Findlay wrote:
> As usual you are a fount of information Peter, thanks.

Thanks, and yer welcome.

> Keeping with the evangelical tradition of the literal interpretation of
> the events in Genesis as being historical instead of
> mythical/allegorical (I want to believe much of it is historical but
> have no problem believing it is mythical) I wonder if God intentionally
> used a double entendre to pose that very question. However, Cain having
> just killed his brother and wanting to avoid the subject, answered in
> the very literal sense, unable to even grasp or come to terms with the
> alternative, albeit more subtle meaning.

But God doesn't use the term *at all*, neither as a double entendre nor as
anything else. The term is Cain's, all Cain's.

And the Lord said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I
know not: Am I my brother's keeper?

That's all God asks: where's your brother? The "keeper" business is just
something that Cain comes up with to dodge the question. And God isn't
fooled at all, because he immediately replies that he hears Abel's blood
crying to him from the ground, etc. I've heard some people argue that God
effectively replies to Cain, "Yes, you *are* your brother's keeper", but,
um, no, God doesn't pay *any* attention to Cain's rhetoric there.

--
http://groups.google.com/group/dadl-ot
)
On Fri, 17 Aug 2012, MartyB wrote:

>> The key point in that passage is that Cain has actively and personally
>> *killed* Abel, not that Cain hasn't been *looking after* Abel. And
>> when God, who already knows that Abel is dead, asks Cain where his
>> brother is, Cain dodges the question by saying he doesn't always know
>> where Abel is because he isn't Abel's "keeper".
>
> I always took it as the kind of thing a kid says trying to dodge
> responsability for something ("It's not my job" or " that's not what you
> said"). In this case, it is even more ironic because Cain *was*
> responsible for Able being dead.

Oh, absolutely. None of that addresses the question of what the term Cain
used actually *means*, though.

> No mention of (semi-on Topic warning) "Keeper of the Bear" ? :-)

Um, not familiar with that term (or why it would be semi-on Topic).

--
http://groups.google.com/group/dadl-ot
)
Keeper of the bear was a hidden track on Stonehill's Thirst cd.

-----Original Message-----
From: dadl- [mailto:dadl-] On Behalf
Of Peter T. Chattaway
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2012 10:59 AM
To: dadl-
Subject: Re: [DADL-OT] How I became George Obama's 'brother'

On Fri, 17 Aug 2012, MartyB wrote:

>> The key point in that passage is that Cain has actively and
>> personally
>> *killed* Abel, not that Cain hasn't been *looking after* Abel. And
>> when God, who already knows that Abel is dead, asks Cain where his
>> brother is, Cain dodges the question by saying he doesn't always know
>> where Abel is because he isn't Abel's "keeper".
>
> I always took it as the kind of thing a kid says trying to dodge
> responsability for something ("It's not my job" or " that's not what
> you said"). In this case, it is even more ironic because Cain *was*
> responsible for Able being dead.

Oh, absolutely. None of that addresses the question of what the term Cain
used actually *means*, though.

> No mention of (semi-on Topic warning) "Keeper of the Bear" ? :-)

Um, not familiar with that term (or why it would be semi-on Topic).

--
http://groups.google.com/group/dadl-ot

--
http://groups.google.com/group/dadl-ot
)
On Mon, 20 Aug 2012, Karl wrote:

>>> No mention of (semi-on Topic warning) "Keeper of the Bear" ? :-)
>>
>> Um, not familiar with that term (or why it would be semi-on Topic).
>
> Keeper of the bear was a hidden track on Stonehill's Thirst cd.

Ah.

Heh. For a second, this was reminding me of an amusingly absrud bit of
stage direction in one of Shakespeare's plays: "Exit, pursued by a bear."

--
http://groups.google.com/group/dadl-ot
)