Contradiction with Exodus 3:8
This verse mentions God giving the land of the Canaanites, including the Amorites, to the Israelites, contradicting the Ammonite claim of land ownership in Judges 11:13.
Exodus 3:8: And I am come down to deliver them out of the hand of the Egyptians, and to bring them up out of that land unto a good land and a large, unto a land flowing with milk and honey; unto the place of the Canaanites, and the Hittites, and the Amorites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites.
Contradiction with Deuteronomy 2:19
God instructs Israel not to harass or contend with the Ammonites for land, suggesting that Ammon’s claim in Judges 11:13 contradicts earlier divine instructions.
Deuteronomy 2:19: And [when] thou comest nigh over against the children of Ammon, distress them not, nor meddle with them: for I will not give thee of the land of the children of Ammon [any] possession; because I have given it unto the children of Lot [for] a possession.
Contradiction with Joshua 13:25
This verse describes the allotment of land taken from the Amorites to the tribes of Israel, contradicting the Ammonite assertion in Judges 11:13 that Israel took land from them.
Joshua 13:25: And their coast was Jazer, and all the cities of Gilead, and half the land of the children of Ammon, unto Aroer that [is] before Rabbah;
Contradiction with Numbers 21:24-26
These verses recount Israel’s conquest of the land from the Amorites, not the Ammonites, which contradicts the Ammonites' claim in Judges 11:13.
Numbers 21:24-26: And Israel smote him with the edge of the sword, and possessed his land from Arnon unto Jabbok, even unto the children of Ammon: for the border of the children of Ammon [was] strong.
Paradox #1
The potential contradiction in Judges 11:13 could relate to differing interpretations of land ownership promised by God versus historical conquests. Some may see a conflict between God's promises to Israel about land and the claims from other groups about having rightful ownership. This can lead to questions about divine promises versus historical and ancestral claims.
Paradox #2
The contradiction in Judges 11:13 involves the claim by the Ammonites that Israel took away their land when they came up from Egypt. However, according to other parts of the Bible, such as in the Book of Numbers, Israel did not take land from Ammon, but rather from the Amorites. This presents a discrepancy in historical accounts regarding the ownership and conquest of the land.
Paradox #3
The potential moral conflict could arise from the claim of territorial rights and the justification of war. In the broader narrative, there's a dispute over land ownership, which could raise questions about the fairness of taking land by conquest and how ancient claims are used to justify conflict. This may seem inconsistent with messages about peace and justice found elsewhere in religious texts.