Contradiction with Galatians 5:6
This verse emphasizes that in Christ, neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value, contrasting with the physical requirement in Genesis 17:11.
Galatians 5:6: For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.
Contradiction with Romans 2:28-29
These verses argue that true Jewish identity and circumcision are matters of the heart, not merely external physical signs, which contradicts the outward physical sign required in Genesis 17:11.
Romans 2:28-29: For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither [is that] circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
Contradiction with 1 Corinthians 7:18-19
These verses state that it is not important whether a man is circumcised or not, directly opposing the covenantal importance placed on circumcision in Genesis 17:11.
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 Galatians 6:15
This verse insists that neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, but rather a new creation, which contrasts with the covenant significance in Genesis 17:11.
Galatians 6:15: For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.
Paradox #1
The possible doctrinal conflict with Genesis 17:11 relates to the differing views on religious practices and their necessity for salvation. Some Christian beliefs emphasize faith in Christ as the sole requirement for salvation, while the practice described in this verse is an Old Testament ritual. This can create tension between adhering to traditional rituals and focusing solely on faith.
Paradox #2
Some critics point out a historical inconsistency regarding circumcision. While Genesis suggests it began with Abraham, archaeological evidence indicates that circumcision was practiced in ancient Egypt and other cultures before Abraham's time. This raises questions about the biblical account's originality regarding this practice.
Paradox #3
The scientific conflict with Genesis 17:11 could be related to the practice of circumcision. Some may argue there are potential medical and ethical concerns about circumcising infants, such as questioning the medical necessity and the ethical implications of performing the procedure on individuals unable to consent.
Paradox #4
Genesis 17:11 discusses the practice of circumcision. A contradiction or conflict might arise from differing views on bodily autonomy and religious practices. Some might argue that enforcing circumcision on infants without their consent conflicts with modern values of personal choice and bodily integrity.