Contradiction with Isaiah 49:15
This verse speaks of a mother's compassion and care for her child, contrasting the extreme situation described in Leviticus 26:29.
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 127:3
This verse refers to children as a heritage and reward from the Lord, emphasizing their value and blessing.
Psalm 127:3: Lo, children [are] an heritage of the LORD: [and] the fruit of the womb [is his] reward.
Contradiction with Matthew 7:9-11
These verses highlight the parental instinct to provide good for one’s children, contrasting with the desperation implied in Leviticus 26:29.
Matthew 7:9-11: Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone?
Contradiction with Genesis 9:6
This verse underscores the value of human life being made in God's image, conflicting with the notion of taking life in Leviticus 26:29.
Genesis 9:6: Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.
Contradiction with Exodus 20:13
The commandment "Thou shalt not kill" directly opposes the drastic actions spoken of in Leviticus 26:29.
Exodus 20:13: Thou shalt not kill.
Paradox #1
Leviticus 26:29 speaks of a severe consequence for disobedience to God, which involves a curse. Some may find this conflicting with the image of a loving and merciful God presented elsewhere in the Bible. This tension between divine punishment and divine love can create theological inconsistency for some believers.
Paradox #2
Leviticus 26:29 speaks about a severe punishment where people would end up in extreme distress. This might seem to contradict the image of a loving and merciful God. Some people see a conflict between this harsh consequence and the idea of forgiveness and grace often highlighted in the New Testament. This contrast might be seen as an inconsistency between justice and mercy within the biblical texts.
Paradox #3
Leviticus 26:29 refers to dire consequences for disobedience to God's commandments, depicting a situation of extreme famine and suffering. The contradiction or conflict might arise from the moral and ethical implications of such severe divine punishment. It can seem inconsistent with the portrayal of a loving and merciful deity elsewhere in the Bible, leading to debates about reconcilement of justice and compassion in divine actions.
Paradox #4
The contradiction in the verse is related to the act of cannibalism mentioned as a consequence, which is considered a taboo and is not supported by modern ethical or scientific standards. Cannibalism is inconsistent with biological needs and social norms as humans have evolved social structures that promote cooperation and community support rather than such extreme survival measures.
Paradox #5
The moral conflict in this verse can arise from the deeply disturbing nature of the content, which involves behaviors that are generally considered morally unacceptable. This contrasts with the teachings of love, compassion, and care for one another found elsewhere in religious texts and beliefs. This inconsistency can be troubling, as it challenges the perception of divine moral standards as consistently just and humane.