Contradiction with Deuteronomy 22:28-29
This passage specifies that the man must marry the virgin he has violated and cannot divorce her, adding a lifelong consequence, whereas Exodus 22:16 primarily covers the payment of a bride price with marriage as a secondary option.
Deuteronomy 22:28-29: If a man find a damsel [that is] a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
Paradox #1
Exodus 22:16 could be seen as inconsistent with other biblical teachings regarding sexual conduct and marriage. This verse discusses a case where a man seduces an unmarried woman. Some may see a conflict with other scriptures that emphasize sexual purity and different standards for marriage. The focus on compensation rather than relational or moral principles could be seen as a contradiction with broader biblical teachings on love, respect, and consensual relationships in the context of marriage.
Paradox #2
Exodus 22:16 could be seen as having a contradiction or conflict due to differing cultural and religious interpretations about marriage and sexual conduct. Some may argue that the verse appears to treat the issue as a financial or contractual matter rather than reflecting deeper moral or relational principles, potentially clashing with other biblical teachings that emphasize love and mutual respect within marriage. Additionally, it might conflict with the modern understanding of consent and gender equality. However, interpretations can vary widely, and some people may not see a conflict at all.
Paradox #3
The contradiction or inconsistency could arise when comparing this verse to the broader context of marriage customs and laws in biblical times. In some parts of the Bible, premarital relations might be condemned or require significant atonement, yet this verse takes a more pragmatic approach to resolving such situations. The inconsistency could be in how similar situations are expected to be handled differently in various parts of the Bible, leading to confusion about the appropriate response.
Paradox #4
The contradiction or conflict in this verse could stem from different interpretations of consent and agency. Some might feel it treats a woman as property by implying a transaction between a man and a woman's father, potentially lacking consideration for the woman's personal choice or consent in the marriage process.