Contradiction with James 1:19
This verse advises being slow to wrath, in contrast to God's initial wrath against the Israelites in Exodus 32:10.
James 1:19: Wherefore, my beloved brethren, let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath:
Contradiction with Ezekiel 18:23
This verse states that God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked, contrasting with His willingness to destroy the Israelites in Exodus 32:10.
Ezekiel 18:23: Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord GOD: [and] not that he should return from his ways, and live?
Contradiction with 2 Peter 3:9
This verse indicates God's desire for all to come to repentance rather than perish, conflicting with His readiness to destroy the Israelites in Exodus 32:10.
2 Peter 3:9: The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
Contradiction with John 3:16
This verse highlights God's love for the world and His wish to save rather than destroy, which contrasts with the destructive intent in Exodus 32:10.
John 3:16: For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Contradiction with Jonah 4:2
This verse recounts God as gracious and merciful, slow to anger, which is at odds with the wrath displayed in Exodus 32:10.
Jonah 4:2: And he prayed unto the LORD, and said, I pray thee, O LORD, [was] not this my saying, when I was yet in my country? Therefore I fled before unto Tarshish: for I knew that thou [art] a gracious God, and merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness, and repentest thee of the evil.
Contradiction with Isaiah 48:9
This verse shows God's choice to defer His anger, unlike His immediate wrathful reaction in Exodus 32:10.
Isaiah 48:9: For my name's sake will I defer mine anger, and for my praise will I refrain for thee, that I cut thee not off.
Paradox #1
Exodus 32:10 poses a theological question about God's nature, specifically regarding the balance between God's justice and mercy. The idea that God could destroy people in anger and then change His mind raises questions about His unchanging nature and infinite mercy. This could appear inconsistent with the belief that God is all-loving and patient.
Paradox #2
The potential doctrinal conflict with the verse in question could arise from the idea of God expressing anger and contemplating severe punishment. This might seem inconsistent with the concept of a loving and merciful God found elsewhere in the Bible. The tension between divine justice and mercy can lead to different interpretations and questions about God's nature and character.
Paradox #3
One possible scientific inconsistency with the verse from Exodus could be the implication of divine intervention, where human-like emotions and decisions are applied to a deity. In the scientific view, natural events and human behaviors are generally understood through empirical evidence and natural laws rather than supernatural reasoning. This might create a conflict for those who prioritize evidence-based understanding of the world.
Paradox #4
Exodus 32:10 presents a situation where God is angry with the Israelites and considers destroying them for worshiping a golden calf. The contradiction or conflict could be seen in the context of God's nature as both just and merciful. On one hand, justice would demand punishment for disobedience, but on the other hand, mercy emphasizes forgiveness and redemption. This raises questions about how justice and mercy can be balanced or reconciled.