Contradiction with Galatians 5:6
This verse contradicts Genesis 17:10 by stating that in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, but faith working through love is what matters.
Galatians 5:6: For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.
Contradiction with Galatians 6:15
It contrasts with Genesis 17:10 by emphasizing that neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but being a new creation matters.
Galatians 6:15: For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.
Contradiction with 1 Corinthians 7:18-19
These verses explain that keeping God's commandments is what matters, rather than circumcision, which contrasts with the directive of Genesis 17:10.
1 Corinthians 7:18-19: Is any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised.
Contradiction with Acts 15:1-2
This passage highlights a debate among early Christians about whether circumcision was necessary for salvation, contrasting the clear command in Genesis 17:10.
Acts 15:1-2: And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, [and said], Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.
Contradiction with Romans 2:28-29
Paul argues that true circumcision is a matter of the heart and spirit, not merely a physical external act, contradicting the physical requirement presented in Genesis 17:10.
Romans 2:28-29: For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither [is that] circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
Paradox #1
Genesis 17:10 talks about circumcision as a covenant with God for Abraham and his descendants. Some see a contradiction because later in the New Testament, especially in writings of Paul, physical circumcision is not emphasized as necessary for being part of God's people. This shift can be seen as inconsistent with the earlier command.
Paradox #2
Genesis 17:10 presents a commandment about circumcision for Abraham and his descendants. A potential conflict arises when comparing it with passages in the New Testament, such as Galatians 5:2-6, where Paul suggests that faith in Christ, not adherence to Jewish law like circumcision, is what matters for salvation. This can be seen as a contradiction between the physical requirement of the Old Testament and the spiritual focus of the New Testament.
Paradox #3
Genesis 17:10 talks about circumcision as a covenant. A contradiction or inconsistency might relate to cultural practices, as circumcision was not unique to the Israelites and likely had different meanings and origins in other ancient societies. This could create conflicts when trying to trace the origins and reasons for the practice solely within the context of one tradition.
Paradox #4
The contradiction related to circumcision, which is the central topic of "Genesis 17:10," might involve debates about health benefits and ethics. While some claim health benefits, like reduced risks of certain infections, others argue that there's insufficient scientific evidence to justify it as a necessity. Additionally, there's debate about ethics concerning bodily autonomy and performing the procedure on infants who cannot give consent.
Paradox #5
The contradiction or conflict in Genesis 17:10 could relate to the practice of circumcision. Some people might see it as a moral issue because it involves making a permanent physical change to infants who cannot consent. For people who value bodily autonomy, this could be seen as a conflict. Additionally, in a broader context, some might question why a physical act is necessary for spiritual or religious faithfulness, potentially clashing with beliefs about faith being a personal, internal commitment.