Contradiction with Exodus 20:14
"Thou shalt not commit adultery." contrasts with the involvement of adultery in the context of 2 Samuel 11:11.
Exodus 20:14: Thou shalt not commit adultery.
Contradiction with 1 Corinthians 6:18
"Flee fornication." contradicts with the act of Uriah's wife being taken by David.
1 Corinthians 6:18: Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.
Contradiction with Romans 12:17
"Recompense to no man evil for evil." contrasts with David's actions against Uriah.
Romans 12:17: Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men.
Contradiction with Leviticus 19:18
"Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." is contradicted by the betrayal of Uriah.
Leviticus 19:18: Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I [am] the LORD.
Contradiction with Matthew 5:27-28
Discusses adultery as a sin, opposing the situation Uriah unknowingly faces.
Matthew 5:27-28: Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
Contradiction with Deuteronomy 27:25
"Cursed be he that taketh reward to slay an innocent person." contrasts with Uriah's fate.
Deuteronomy 27:25: Cursed [be] he that taketh reward to slay an innocent person. And all the people shall say, Amen.
Contradiction with Proverbs 6:32
"Whoso committeth adultery with a woman lacketh understanding." contrasts David's actions towards Uriah's wife.
Proverbs 6:32: [But] whoso committeth adultery with a woman lacketh understanding: he [that] doeth it destroyeth his own soul. [understanding: Heb. heart]
Paradox #1
2 Samuel 11:11 could be seen as highlighting a contradiction where Uriah demonstrates loyalty and integrity by refusing to enjoy personal comforts while his fellow soldiers and the Ark are in battle. This contrasts with King David's unethical behavior, as he attempts to cover his own wrongdoing. The conflict lies between Uriah's honorable conduct and David's actions, which could be perceived as conflicting with moral and ethical expectations for a leader.
Paradox #2
The contradiction in this verse arises from the actions of King David, who stays back in comfort while sending his soldiers to battle. Meanwhile, Uriah, a soldier, refuses to enjoy personal comforts out of loyalty to his fellow soldiers. The conflict lies in David's behavior, which contrasts with the loyalty and duty exemplified by Uriah, highlighting a moral inconsistency between the leader's actions and the soldier's ethics.