Contradiction with Matthew 5:44
Teaches love and kindness even to enemies, contrasting with parents consuming their children.
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 Exodus 20:13
Prohibits killing, contradicting the act of cannibalism by mothers in Lamentations.
Exodus 20:13: Thou shalt not kill.
Contradiction with Proverbs 12:10
Emphasizes caring nature of the righteous, which contradicts mothers harming their own children.
Proverbs 12:10: A righteous [man] regardeth the life of his beast: but the tender mercies of the wicked [are] cruel. [tender...: or, bowels]
Contradiction with Isaiah 49:15
Describes maternal compassion and nurturing, contrasting with the actions of mothers in Lamentations.
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 1 John 4:8
States that God is love, opposing the desperate, horrific act described in Lamentations.
1 John 4:8: He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.
Contradiction with Romans 12:21
Encourages overcoming evil with good, conflicting with the act of consuming one's offspring.
Romans 12:21: Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.
Paradox #1
Lamentations 4:10 is often seen as describing a very desperate and tragic situation, which can be difficult to reconcile with the belief in a compassionate and loving God. This can be seen as a contradiction to the idea that God provides and cares for His people, creating tension for some between the depiction of God's nature and human experiences of intense suffering and dire circumstances.
Paradox #2
This verse might raise questions or concerns about human suffering and desperation during extreme circumstances, possibly seeming inconsistent with the idea of a loving and just God. People might struggle with understanding how such severe events fit within God's plan or how they align with His nature.
Paradox #3
Lamentations 4:10 discusses a situation of extreme desperation during a siege, where people resort to acts they wouldn't normally consider. The contradiction or conflict may arise in the context of differing views on how accurate or literal these descriptions are. Some might question whether this verse accurately reflects historical events or if it uses exaggerated language for dramatic effect. Others might debate its historical reliability compared to other ancient accounts of similar events.
Paradox #4
The scientific conflict with Lamentations 4:10 could be the description of extreme human behavior under dire circumstances, like cannibalism during a siege, which is seen as morally and socially unacceptable today. In modern society, such actions are viewed through psychological and ethical perspectives rather than as a divine consequence or historical inevitability. Additionally, historical and archeological evidence for such events is often limited or debated.
Paradox #5
Lamentations 4:10 describes an extreme situation of suffering where people are driven to desperate actions. The moral conflict here lies in the tension between the instinct to protect life and the moral wrongness of certain actions that might be taken under dire circumstances. It shows how extreme hardship can challenge deeply held moral beliefs and values.