Contradiction with Genesis 1:26-28
These verses emphasize mankind's dominion over animals, suggesting a level of control and lack of liability that contrasts with the accountability outlined in Exodus 21:28.
Genesis 1:26-28: And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
Contradiction with Psalm 8:6-8
Highlights human dominion over animals, conflicting with the responsibility of the owner for the ox's actions in Exodus 21:28.
Psalm 8:6-8: Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all [things] under his feet:
Contradiction with Isaiah 11:6-9
Describes a future of harmony where violence among creatures will end, contrasting the idea of animal aggression and the need for punishment as in Exodus 21:28.
Isaiah 11:6-9: The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.
Contradiction with Matthew 10:29-31
Illustrates God's providence over animals, which contrasts with the human liability and control assumed in Exodus 21:28.
Matthew 10:29-31: Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father. [farthing: it is in value halfpenny farthing in the original, as being the tenth part of the Roman penny]
Contradiction with Romans 14:3-4
Suggests that judging others' actions belongs to God, conflicting with the human application of judgment in Exodus 21:28.
Romans 14:3-4: Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.
Contradiction with Colossians 2:16-17
Indicates that legal regulations are a shadow of things to come through Christ, thereby contrasting with the legalism in Exodus 21:28.
Colossians 2:16-17: Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath [days]: [in meat...: or, for eating and drinking] [respect: or, part]
Paradox #1
Exodus 21:28 might be seen as having a contradiction or conflict in relation to the concept of divine justice or fairness. Some people might wonder why the responsibility for an animal's actions falls on the owner, which could seem inconsistent with the idea that each being is accountable for its own actions. Additionally, in a broader theological context, this could raise questions about the nature of justice and the balance of mercy and responsibility in biblical law.
Paradox #2
Exodus 21:28 could present a doctrinal inconsistency because it discusses laws and consequences related to animal behavior, which might not align with modern views on justice and responsibility. The verse focuses on specific situations in ancient society that may not be directly applicable to contemporary ethical and legal standards, potentially conflicting with broader biblical themes of personal responsibility and justice.
Paradox #3
The contradiction in this context could relate to the treatment of animals, specifically the behavior and responsibility attributed to an ox. Scientifically, attributing personal responsibility and intent to an animal like an ox may not align with our understanding of animal behavior, which typically doesn't involve moral or legal accountability. Additionally, the measures for ensuring safety and determining fault in such situations might not align with modern scientific and ethical views on animal management and welfare.
Paradox #4
The contradiction or inconsistency in Exodus 21:28 could be seen in the approach to justice and punishment. It deals with holding an animal (an ox) accountable for harm it causes, raising questions about fairness in punishing an animal that cannot understand or intend wrongdoing. It suggests differing views on responsibility and justice compared to modern perspectives where responsibility is typically assigned to the owner rather than the animal itself.