Contradictions and Paradoxes in Deuteronomy 11:10

Check out Contradictions Catalog of Deuteronomy 11:10 for the comprehensive list of verses that contradicts Deuteronomy 11:10. Some key contradictions and paradoxes are described below.

According to Moses, this verse means that the new land God is giving to the people is not like the old one in Egypt. In Egypt, they had to work really hard to water the plants, but the new land will be better and easier to care for.

Deuteronomy 11:10: For the land, whither thou goest in to possess it, [is] not as the land of Egypt, from whence ye came out, where thou sowedst thy seed, and wateredst [it] with thy foot, as a garden of herbs:

Contradiction with Genesis 2:5

Deuteronomy 11:10 suggests manual labor is needed to water the land, while Genesis 2:5 implies a natural provision of water from God before any man worked the ground.

Genesis 2:5: And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and [there was] not a man to till the ground.

Contradiction with Jeremiah 2:7

Deuteronomy 11:10 refers to irrigation by human efforts, whereas Jeremiah 2:7 speaks of God bringing the Israelites into a fruitful land, implying God's provision without reliance on human irrigation.

Jeremiah 2:7: And I brought you into a plentiful country, to eat the fruit thereof and the goodness thereof; but when ye entered, ye defiled my land, and made mine heritage an abomination. [a plentiful...: or, the land of Carmel]

Contradiction with Matthew 6:28-29

Deuteronomy 11:10 highlights human labor for land cultivation, contrasting with Jesus' teaching in Matthew 6:28-29, which emphasizes reliance on God's provision and minimal human effort for sustenance.

Matthew 6:28-29: And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin:

Paradox #1

The verse might present a contradiction or inconsistency when considering the geographical and agricultural descriptions of Egypt versus the land of Canaan. Egypt primarily relied on the Nile River for irrigation, whereas Canaan depended on rain. This depiction may not thoroughly reflect the complexity and variations of agricultural practices in these regions throughout history.

Paradox #2

The potential contradiction in the verse can be related to the description of agricultural practices. If the verse suggests that the land in question requires a type of farming or irrigation technique that contradicts geological or historical agricultural evidence from that region and time period, this could pose a scientific inconsistency. However, without specific details from the verse, this is a hypothetical scenario.

Disclaimer: The content provided at PolarBible.com is for educational purposes only. Readers have the full right to agree or disagree with the interpretations and conclusions presented. We take no responsibility for any actions or decisions taken based on the information shared as Polar Verses.