Contradiction with Genesis 9:6
Genesis 9:6 promotes the idea of capital punishment for those who shed blood, contradicting Exodus 21:13's provision for refuge if the killing was unintentional.
Genesis 9:6: Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.
Contradiction with Numbers 35:16-19
These verses mandate death for murder without consideration for intent, in contrast to Exodus 21:13, which allows a place of refuge for accidental killers.
Numbers 35:16-19: And if he smite him with an instrument of iron, so that he die, he [is] a murderer: the murderer shall surely be put to death.
Contradiction with Deuteronomy 19:11-12
In these verses, premeditated actions result in no refuge, creating a conflict with Exodus 21:13's allowance for a protected place for unintentional actions.
Deuteronomy 19:11-12: But if any man hate his neighbour, and lie in wait for him, and rise up against him, and smite him mortally that he die, and fleeth into one of these cities: [mortally: Heb. in life]
Contradiction with Leviticus 24:17
This verse declares that anyone who kills a person should be put to death, opposing the protection for unintentional killing found in Exodus 21:13.
Leviticus 24:17: And he that killeth any man shall surely be put to death. [killeth...: Heb. smiteth the life of a man]
Paradox #1
The possible contradiction with Exodus 21:13 could arise when considering it alongside the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" from the Ten Commandments. Exodus 21:13 provides a scenario where killing is distinguished from murder based on intention and lays out guidelines for unintentional killing, potentially leading to questions about how justice is administered and the nature of culpability. This might appear inconsistent with the more absolute commandment not to kill, prompting discussions on the nuances of intent and responsibility in biblical law.
Paradox #2
The contradiction or inconsistency with this verse might relate to the differing views on intentional versus accidental actions in ancient laws. In some historical contexts, all killings might have been treated with the same severity, while this verse distinguishes between intentional murder and accidental killing, showing a more nuanced legal framework. This could be seen as inconsistent with other ancient legal systems that didn't differentiate in the same way.
Paradox #3
The contradiction or inconsistency in this verse could be that it seems to differentiate between unintentional and intentional harm, implying that accidental actions can have less severe consequences. This could conflict with the idea of holding individuals fully accountable for all actions, regardless of intent.