Contradiction with Exodus 20:13
This verse states "Thou shalt not kill," which contradicts the act of human sacrifice described in 2 Kings 3:27.
Exodus 20:13: Thou shalt not kill.
Contradiction with Deuteronomy 12:31
It condemns the act of human sacrifice, stating it is an abomination, conflicting with the offering made in 2 Kings 3:27.
Deuteronomy 12:31: Thou shalt not do so unto the LORD thy God: for every abomination to the LORD, which he hateth, have they done unto their gods; for even their sons and their daughters they have burnt in the fire to their gods. [to the: Heb. of the]
Contradiction with Psalm 106:37-38
These verses criticize the sacrifice of sons and daughters to idols, contrasting with the sacrificial act in 2 Kings 3:27.
Psalm 106:37-38: Yea, they sacrificed their sons and their daughters unto devils,
Contradiction with Jeremiah 19:5
God declares He never commanded the act of child sacrifice, opposing the acceptance or effect seen in 2 Kings 3:27.
Jeremiah 19:5: They have built also the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire [for] burnt offerings unto Baal, which I commanded not, nor spake [it], neither came [it] into my mind:
Contradiction with Micah 6:7
Questions if the Lord would be pleased with human sacrifice, implying disapproval in contrast to the seemingly efficacious sacrifice in 2 Kings 3:27.
Micah 6:7: Will the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams, [or] with ten thousands of rivers of oil? shall I give my firstborn [for] my transgression, the fruit of my body [for] the sin of my soul? [body: Heb. belly]
Paradox #1
Some people see a contradiction in this verse because it seems to suggest that the sacrifice of the Moabite king's son caused divine intervention, benefiting Moab. This raises questions about why a pagan act would influence the outcome when God is typically portrayed as opposing such practices. This can lead to confusion about the nature of God's justice and influence in the situation.
Paradox #2
2 Kings 3:27 might raise questions or confusion about God's actions or the Israelites' behavior because it involves a human sacrifice leading to a favorable outcome for the Moabites, which seems inconsistent with other biblical teachings against such practices. This can be seen as conflicting with the overall biblical message that condemns human sacrifice.
Paradox #3
2 Kings 3:27 describes a foreign king sacrificing his son, which leads to Israel experiencing great wrath and retreating. This creates a contradiction or conflict because it seems like a pagan ritual affects the outcome for Israel, which goes against the typical biblical narrative where God determines the fate of Israel based on their faithfulness. This situation can be puzzling since it doesn't align with the usual expectations of divine intervention in favor of Israel.
Paradox #4
The contradiction in 2 Kings 3:27 could involve the concept of human sacrifice influencing a battle's outcome. Science does not support the idea that such acts can alter physical events or outcomes like a battle, as it relies on natural and physical laws rather than supernatural intervention.
Paradox #5
The contradiction in this verse arises from a situation where a human sacrifice seems to influence the outcome of a battle, leading to questions about why such an act appears to result in a positive outcome for one side. This could conflict with the broader biblical stance against human sacrifice, creating inconsistency in the moral message.