Contradiction with Isaiah 49:15
Lamentations 2:20 depicts a scene where women are urged to eat their offspring, while Isaiah 49:15 emphasizes that a woman would not forget her nursing child, highlighting compassion instead of desperation.
Isaiah 49:15: Can a woman forget her sucking child, that she should not have compassion on the son of her womb? yea, they may forget, yet will I not forget thee. [that...: Heb. from having compassion]
Contradiction with Psalm 37:25
Lamentations 2:20 reflects on dire circumstances and extreme desperation, whereas Psalm 37:25 speaks of never seeing the righteous forsaken or their children begging for bread, indicating divine provision.
Psalm 37:25: I have been young, and [now] am old; yet have I not seen the righteous forsaken, nor his seed begging bread.
Contradiction with Deuteronomy 7:13
Lamentations 2:20 conveys a scene of distress and abandonment, while Deuteronomy 7:13 promises blessing, fruitfulness, and increase, suggesting prosperity rather than suffering.
Deuteronomy 7:13: And he will love thee, and bless thee, and multiply thee: he will also bless the fruit of thy womb, and the fruit of thy land, thy corn, and thy wine, and thine oil, the increase of thy kine, and the flocks of thy sheep, in the land which he sware unto thy fathers to give thee.
Contradiction with Jeremiah 29:11
Whereas Lamentations 2:20 illustrates suffering and calamity, Jeremiah 29:11 offers reassurance of peace and hope for the future, underscoring God's plans for welfare rather than harm.
Jeremiah 29:11: For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, saith the LORD, thoughts of peace, and not of evil, to give you an expected end. [expected...: Heb. end and expectation]
Paradox #1
Lamentations 2:20 highlights the intense suffering and desperation faced by the people, raising questions about God's compassion and justice. The contradiction arises in trying to reconcile a loving, merciful God with the severe punishment and distress depicted in this situation. This can be challenging for believers who struggle to understand why a benevolent deity would allow such suffering.
Paradox #2
Some interpretations of this verse describe extreme situations that may not align with a scientific understanding of human behavior or survival. For instance, it suggests acts that are deeply troubling and contradictory to basic human and natural instincts for nurturing and protecting one's offspring. In reality, such behaviors are seen as extreme, rare, and typically driven by severe circumstances rather than natural tendencies.
Paradox #3
The verse might be seen as morally contradictory or conflicting because it describes a situation where extreme suffering leads to desperate actions, like harming innocents. This could raise questions about the morality of allowing such suffering to occur and the justice of these actions.