Contradiction with Exodus 20:13
Highlights "Thou shalt not kill," contradicting the violence in Judges 19:29.
Exodus 20:13: Thou shalt not kill.
Contradiction with Matthew 5:44
Advises to "Love your enemies," opposing the act of vengeance in Judges 19:29.
Matthew 5:44: But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
Contradiction with Romans 12:19
Urges "avenge not yourselves," conflicting with the idea of personal retribution in Judges 19:29.
Romans 12:19: Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but [rather] give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance [is] mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.
Contradiction with Ephesians 4:32
Calls for kindness and forgiveness, contradicting the brutal actions in Judges 19:29.
Ephesians 4:32: And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you.
Contradiction with 1 John 4:20
States "he who loveth not his brother" cannot love God, contradicting the lack of love demonstrated in Judges 19:29.
1 John 4:20: If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?
Paradox #1
The actions described in Judges 19:29 might be seen as deeply disturbing and morally troubling, especially when viewed in the context of the broader biblical message of love, compassion, and justice. Some may find it hard to reconcile the violence in this verse with the Bible's teachings on kindness and ethical behavior. This can create a sense of inconsistency for readers trying to understand how such events fit within the overall moral framework of the Bible.
Paradox #2
Judges 19:29 describes a gruesome act committed in a story filled with violence and moral chaos. The contradiction or conflict might arise from how this event fits within the broader narrative of Israel's history and the laws given in earlier biblical texts. The act is inconsistent with the ethical teachings found elsewhere in the Bible, highlighting a period of lawlessness in Israel's history. Additionally, this event could seem at odds with the cultural norms and justice systems of that time, sparking debate among historians and theologians about its historical accuracy or moral implications.
Paradox #3
The contradiction in the context of that verse could relate to the historical accuracy and possibility of such an event happening exactly as described. It involves a gruesome act that challenges the understanding of human behavior from a psychological and sociological perspective. Additionally, it raises questions about the historical context and whether such practices were documented in other historical records. However, from a scientific standpoint, the primary conflict would be the lack of empirical evidence or corroborating historical data for the described events.
Paradox #4
The contradiction in this verse involves the extreme violence and dismemberment of a human body, which conflicts with the general moral teaching of respect for human life. This act is shocking and raises questions about justice and morality within the context of the narrative.