Genesis 8:20-22, 9:8-17
Genesis 9:3, Deuteronomy 12:15
1 Corinthians 15:20-22
Genesis 9:4; Deuteronomy 12:23; Leviticus 17:13
I Corinthians 15:20-26
Anyway there are several more Book and verse int eh bible and you can find them at the addy I posted, these explain why we can hunts and KILL ANIMALS.
All this beside the fact wild meat taste good.
Return to The Taxidermy Industry Category Menu
Oh NO ! you posted a religious post! are you going to get it. Well maybe not, we like hearing good stuff. Thanks John,
John C...First let me start this by saying that I am a hunter. I believe that every law abiding citizen has the right to hunt. So we agree on the right that we can and should hunt. I just have a problem with the bible being used as justification. In the bible murder ,rape, pillage and kidnapping of women is promoted and justified Judges 21:10-24 ,Numbers 31:7-18 , Deuteronomy 20:10-14. If a man rapes a woman, he must marry her and cannot get divorced Deuteronomy 22:28-29 . If a woman is raped and doesnt cry out, she must be killed Deuteronomy 22:23-24 . And then there are other great things the bible says we can do such as , human sacrifice Exodus 13:2,Genesis 22:1-18,Leviticus 27:28-29. It also promotes slavery such as in Leviticus 25:44-46 ,Exodus 21:2-6 , Selling your daughter as a sex slave Exodus 21:7-11. The list goes on and on. So go on and hunt hunt hunt...just leave the bible out of this.
Unlike the above post some of us beleave in the Bible. Typical response Steve telling us to leave the Bible out of it. At least JohnC presented a valid argurement and has a reference for why we should hunt. I would much rather rely on what the Bible says then to listen to someone who goes from his/her own personal beliefs.
I baited some of you by posting these.
These are simply for those who wish to respond to many of the anti-hunters.
Recently several of the newpapaers around my area have been blasted for printing of deer kills. Of course the anits claim the bible says not to kill hte animals. So in response I found this site and posted the biblical books and verse numbers.
Please anyone who wishes to defend our rights to hunt use them!
I dont want to debate your post, but you made one boo boo. You have the RIGHT to bear arms. You do not have the right to hunt. Thats a priveledge. To some thats splitting hairs, to me, it makes all the difference in the world. Carry on!
DateT...since you believe in the bible , Im going to come around your house this saturday and if I find you working you will be put to death... right? Numbers 15:32-36. And If I come to your town and do not accept my terms, I can kill every man, but keep the women and livestock as my own..correct?Deuteronomy 20:10-18. And If I rape your daughter, I can then marry her against her will?Deuteronomy 22:28-29. Im so glad that you are Ok with all of this, and use this book to govern your life.Oh yeah...If you are of a different religion than me,and you try to entice me with your religion,I can kill you...god said so himself in Deuteronomy 13:7-12. Now I or any other rational person wouldnt actually do any of these things. I am using these examples to illustrate the absurdity of using the bible to justify anything. DaveT says that johnC presented a valid arguement and has reference why we should hunt. Arent my examples and my references as valid as his are? If the bible says one thing is right,then every thing it says must be right...isnt that correct? They claim its the direct word of God. And he cant be wrong? He wouldnt lie or say things that werent true...would he? So I cant really figure out why you would be against someone doing some or all of the examples I mentioned . I would like to think that in this modern age in which we live in, a person is free to make his or her own decisions,and not be held back or have their thoughts and needs or decisions made for them by a book that was written by some guys in tents in the desert a few thousand years ago.
7. And if a man sell his daughter to be a maid-servant, she shall not go out as the men-servants do.
8. If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.
9. And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters.
10. If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.
11. And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money.
From this passage, as well as other similar ones, it plainly appears how many vices were of necessity tolerated in this people. It was altogether an act of barbarism that fathers should sell their children for the relief of their poverty, still it could not be corrected as might have been hoped. Again, the sanctity of the marriage-vow should have been greater than that it should be allowable for a master to repudiate his bond-maid, after he had betrothed her to himself as his wife; or, when he had betrothed her to his son, to make void that covenant, which is inviolable: for that principle ought ever to hold good -- "Those whom God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." (Matthew 19:6; Mark 10:9.) Yet liberty was accorded to the ancient people in all these particulars; only provision is here made that the poor girls should not suffer infamy and injury from their repudiation. But, although God is gracious in remitting the punishment, still He shows that chastity is pleasing to Him, as far as the people's hardness of heart permitted. First of all, He does not allow a master to seduce his purchased maid-servant, but if he wishes to enjoy her embraces, a marriage must take place; for although He does not set this out in express terms, still we may infer from what He condemns, that the contrary is what He approves. From whence, too, their notion is refuted who suppose that fornication was lawful under the Law. But the words must be more closely examined on account of their ambiguity. First, the sex is treated with consideration, that the condition of a female may be somewhat more favorable than that of a male; since, otherwise, their weakness would render young women subject to injury and shame. An explanation then follows, respecting which, however, interpreters differ; for some read the particle al,2 lo, which is properly negative, for wl, lo; and hence arise two opposite meanings -- If he hath, or hath not, betrothed her to himself. If it be preferred to take it affirmatively, the meaning of the precept will be: If a master shall repudiate his bond-maid, whom he has loved and destined to be his wife, he must give her her liberty; for although literally it is, "he shall cause her to be redeemed," yet; the context shows that the obligation of setting her free is laid upon him; nor is this contradicted by the fact that he is only deprived of the power of selling her to a strange people; since I do not understand this as applying to foreigners only, but to others of his own nation, since sometimes those of another tribe or family are called strangers. For, even though there were no marriage-compact, it was not otherwise lawful to sell slaves of the holy and elect people to foreigners. Besides, amongst the Israelites, slavery was only temporary. But, to pass by everything else, let it suffice to observe the absurdity that a master should hold his wife as a slave to be sold at pleasure, if their opinion is received who suppose that the words refer to repudiation after betrothal.3 I myself rather approve of the other opinion, that, although the master shall not have aspired to matrimony with her, if her appearance displeases him so that he would be unwilling to have her as his wife, at least he must provide for her redemption; because her chastity would be in jeopardy if she remained with him unmarried; unless perhaps Moses may signify that, after she had been seduced, her master did not honor her with marriage. But the other view which I have just expressed is more simple; and a caution is given lest masters should seduce their maid-servants at their pleasure. Thus the word despise4 does not refer to repudiation, but is opposed to beauty, or conjugal love.
The next case is, that if he should betroth her to his son, (he must give her a dowry,5) in which, also, her modesty and honor is consulted, lest she should be oppressed by the right of ownership, and become a harlot. In the third place, it is provided that, if she should be repudiated, her condition should not be disadvantageous. If, therefore, he would make her his daughter-in-law, and betroth her to his son, he is commanded to deal liberally with her; for "after the manner of daughters" is equivalent to giving her a dowry, or, at any rate, to treating her as if she were free. Finally, he adds that, if he should choose another wife for his son, he should not reject the former one, nor defraud her of her food and raiment, or of some third thing, concerning which translators are not well agreed. Some render it time, but I do not see what is the meaning of diminishing her time; others, duty of marriage, but this is too free a translation; others, more correctly, affliction, since the girl would be humiliated by her repudiation; still, to diminish affliction, is too harsh an expression for to compensate an injury. Let my readers, then, consider whether the word, htne, gnonathah, is not used for compact or agreement; for thus the context will run very well: If his son have married another wife, that the girl who has suffered ignominious rejection should obtain her rights as to food, and raiment, and her appointed dowry; otherwise, God commands that she should be set free gratuitously, in order that her liberty may compensate for the wrong she has received.
From the Coran
Some Muslims claim that the following passage from the Holy Bible condones rape:
"If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives." Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NIV
At first glance this passage does seem to condone rape. That is, until one takes a careful look at the context as well as the original languages. We must remember that the Holy Bible was not written in English. The OT was written in Hebrew, with parts of it written in Aramaic. The NT was written in Koine or common Greek. This means that if we want to know whether an English translation has faithfully and accurately translated the inspired author's intended meaning we must turn to the original language of the sacred text. Once this is done, it will become quite apparent that the Holy Bible does not sanction rape at all.
In the first place, the word which the NIV translates as rape comes from two Hebrew words, taphas and shakab. Here are the meanings listed by the Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew Lexicon in reference to these two words:
Numbers 15;32-36The Sabbath-Breaker Put to Death
32 While the Israelites were in the desert, a man was found gathering wood on the Sabbath day. 33 Those who found him gathering wood brought him to Moses and Aaron and the whole assembly, 34 and they kept him in custody, because it was not clear what should be done to him. 35 Then the LORD said to Moses, "The man must die. The whole assembly must stone him outside the camp." 36 So the assembly took him outside the camp and stoned him to death, as the LORD commanded Moses.
So is Saturday the Sabbeth or is it Sunday? You dont know and niether does anyone else. Its interpitation.
Exodus 21:13,28-32; Numbers 35:11-15,22-28,32; Deuteronomy 4:41-43; 19:2-10; Joshua 20:1-9
FELONIOUS, OR MURDER
Genesis 4:9-12; 9:5,6; 49:7; Exodus 20:13; 21:29-32; Numbers 35:16-22,30,31; Deuteronomy 5:17; 17:6; 21:1-9; 22:8; 27:24,25; 1 Kings 21:19; 2 Chronicles 24:22; Job 24:1-25; Psalms 5:6; 9:12; 10:2; 26:9,10; 37:32; 38:12; 55:23; 94:3; Proverbs 1:11,12,15,16; 6:16,17; 12:6; 28:17; Isaiah 26:21; 59:3,7; Jeremiah 2:34; 7:9,10; 19:4; 22:3; Ezekiel 22:9; 35:6; Hosea 1:4; 4:1-3; Habakkuk 2:10,12; Matthew 5:21,22; 15:19; 19:18; Mark 7:21; 10:19; Luke 18:20; Romans 13:9; Galatians 5:19-21; 1 Timothy 1:9; James 2:11; 1 Peter 4:15; 1 John 3:12,15; Revelation 9:21; 21:8; 22:15
And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
Is it OK
to take oaths?
Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When a man shall make a singular vow, the persons shall be for the LORD by thy estimation.
Males (20 - 60 years old)
are worth 50 shekels.
Females are worth 30
And thy estimation shall be of the male from twenty years old even unto sixty years old, even thy estimation shall be fifty shekels of silver, after the shekel of the sanctuary.
And if it be a female, then thy estimation shall be thirty shekels.
Males (5 - 20 years old)
are worth 20 shekels.
Females are worth 10
And if it be from five years old even unto twenty years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male twenty shekels, and for the female ten shekels.
Males (< 5 years old)
are worth 5 shekels.
Females are worth 3
And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver, and for the female thy estimation shall be three shekels of silver.
And if it be from sixty years old and above; if it be a male, then thy estimation shall be fifteen shekels, and for the female ten shekels.
But if he be poorer than thy estimation, then he shall present himself before the priest, and the priest shall value him; according to his ability that vowed shall the priest value him.
And if it be a beast, whereof men bring an offering unto the LORD, all that any man giveth of such unto the LORD shall be holy.
Is it OK
to take oaths?
He shall not alter it, nor change it, a good for a bad, or a bad for a good: and if he shall at all change beast for beast, then it and the exchange thereof shall be holy.
And if it be any unclean beast, of which they do not offer a sacrifice unto the LORD, then he shall present the beast before the priest:
And the priest shall value it, whether it be good or bad: as thou valuest it, who art the priest, so shall it be.
But if he will at all redeem it, then he shall add a fifth part thereof unto thy estimation.
And when a man shall sanctify his house to be holy unto the LORD, then the priest shall estimate it, whether it be good or bad: as the priest shall estimate it, so shall it stand.
And if he that sanctified it will redeem his house, then he shall add the fifth part of the money of thy estimation unto it, and it shall be his.
And if a man shall sanctify unto the LORD some part of a field of his possession, then thy estimation shall be according to the seed thereof: an homer of barley seed shall be valued at fifty shekels of silver.
If he sanctify his field from the year of jubile, according to thy estimation it shall stand.
But if he sanctify his field after the jubile, then the priest shall reckon unto him the money according to the years that remain, even unto the year of the jubile, and it shall be abated from thy estimation.
And if he that sanctified the field will in any wise redeem it, then he shall add the fifth part of the money of thy estimation unto it, and it shall be assured to him.
And if he will not redeem the field, or if he have sold the field to another man, it shall not be redeemed any more.
But the field, when it goeth out in the jubile, shall be holy unto the LORD, as a field devoted; the possession thereof shall be the priest's.
And if a man sanctify unto the LORD a field which he hath bought, which is not of the fields of his possession;
Then the priest shall reckon unto him the worth of thy estimation, even unto the year of the jubile: and he shall give thine estimation in that day, as a holy thing unto the LORD.
In the year of the jubile the field shall return unto him of whom it was bought, even to him to whom the possession of the land did belong.
And all thy estimations shall be according to the shekel of the sanctuary: twenty gerahs shall be the shekel.
Only the firstling of the beasts, which should be the LORD's firstling, no man shall sanctify it; whether it be ox, or sheep: it is the LORD's.
And if it be of an unclean beast, then he shall redeem it according to thine estimation, and shall add a fifth part of it thereto: or if it be not redeemed, then it shall be sold according to thy estimation.
Notwithstanding no devoted thing, that a man shall devote unto the LORD of all that he hath, both of man and beast, and of the field of his possession, shall be sold or redeemed: every devoted thing is most holy unto the LORD.
All devoted things,
whether man or beast,
shall surely be put to death.
None devoted, which shall be devoted of men, shall be redeemed; but shall surely be put to death.
And all the tithe of the land, whether of the seed of the land, or of the fruit of the tree, is the LORD's: it is holy unto the LORD.
And if a man will at all redeem ought of his tithes, he shall add thereto the fifth part thereof.
And concerning the tithe of the herd, or of the flock, even of whatsoever passeth under the rod, the tenth shall be holy unto the LORD.
He shall not search whether it be good or bad, neither shall he change it: and if he change it at all, then both it and the change thereof shall be holy; it shall not be redeemed.
These are the commandments, which the LORD commanded Moses for the children of Israel in mount Sinai
Steve, I never intended to get into a Biblical arguement here. This could go on for years, or until we have the bible posted page by page.
But I did cut an paste one from the Coran' so you know it says very much the samething!
that the NEW testament replaced all the things we were told to do in the OLD testament.
no more sacrifices, no burnt offerings, Jesus was given up for OUR SINS there for we are under the new testament right ?
Steve, If you do not like the Bible and do not believe it, that is your choice... i believe that you will give an account same as I will. However, please do not try to interpret what you obviously do not understand. And please do not tell those of us who do believe in the Bible when it should or should not be used. Why is it that you have the right not to use the Bible but I do not have the right to use it?
What I stated above was that JC gave us a reference for his belief that we should hunt. A ref that many of us consider concrete. You came here and said we shouldn't use the Bible to justify it. So I ask you again, except for your own personal beliefs, what ref do you offer up to support our right to hunt? Yox already pointed out that the constitution in no ways gives you the "right" to hunt. If you really want to come to my house this Saturday I will gladly try to give you my interpretation (for free) on the old testament law and the versus you quoted because I believe you took them way out of context.
JohnC Thanks for all the versus
Steve, take note that every verse you quoted was out of the Old Testament. I am a New testament Christian. There is alot of difference between the two. Main difference is Jesus had to die for us all whether you like it or not, believe or not. With HIs death we now can have life, and life in His Spirit and life eternal. We are told to love our neighbor as ourself. In the old testament we were not commanded to do all the things that are expected of us as far as compassion for our fellow man, and to love our enemies. Why not in the old testament? Because Jesus had not yet died so we therefore could not receive the Holy Spirit to give us the power to love our enemies. Simply stated again. Old testament did not have the Holy Spirit in peoples lives, New testament, we have the Holy Spirit and therefore the power of God within us to do things that would be impossible without the Holy Spirit. Skullery...<><
Steve suppose you tell us? are they not to be followed now? are they not the guidelines to our modern laws? are they not the guidence to good morals?
So Steve do you think our world would have evovled without them?
God had a plan before he even created man. He gave man the old testament laws for two reasons. To show man that given what is right man can not live by even simple rules and the penality for breaking them is death. The second reason is so that he could show man how much he loved him by provided a sacrafice/payment for our sins... his son Jesus the Christ. The Old Testament was just a record of how God revealed himself to man. The New Testament is a record of his fullfilling the promises he made throughout the Old Testament and a record of the life/sacrafice of his son. To read one without the other will cause confussion and despair. Not everyone who reads the Bible will understand it; without the Holy Spirit it will seem like foolishness and rubbish.