Contradiction with Job 1:21
This verse emphasizes loss, stating that the LORD gives and takes away, which contrasts with the assurance of continuous provision in 1 Kings 17:14.
Job 1:21: And said, Naked came I out of my mother's womb, and naked shall I return thither: the LORD gave, and the LORD hath taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD.
Contradiction with Lamentations 3:17-18
It expresses a loss of peace and hope in the LORD, contradicting the continual sustenance and trust exemplified in 1 Kings 17:14.
Lamentations 3:17-18: And thou hast removed my soul far off from peace: I forgat prosperity. [prosperity: Heb. good]
Contradiction with Habakkuk 3:17
This verse speaks of a period where there is no yield from the fields, contradicting the promise of unending food supply in 1 Kings 17:14.
Habakkuk 3:17: Although the fig tree shall not blossom, neither [shall] fruit [be] in the vines; the labour of the olive shall fail, and the fields shall yield no meat; the flock shall be cut off from the fold, and [there shall be] no herd in the stalls: [fail: Heb. lie]
Contradiction with Psalm 44:24
It questions God's remembrance and favor, which stands in contrast to the active provision promised in 1 Kings 17:14.
Psalm 44:24: Wherefore hidest thou thy face, [and] forgettest our affliction and our oppression?
Contradiction with Jeremiah 14:4
It describes a drought causing despair, contrary to the guarantee of resources until rain comes in 1 Kings 17:14.
Jeremiah 14:4: Because the ground is chapt, for there was no rain in the earth, the plowmen were ashamed, they covered their heads.
Paradox #1
The verse describes a miraculous event where resources do not run out despite continuous use. Scientifically, resources like flour and oil would deplete with use unless there is a natural process replenishing them. This event contradicts the law of conservation of mass, which states that matter cannot be created or destroyed by ordinary means.
Paradox #2
Moral contradiction or inconsistency might arise from the idea of divine intervention in providing resources to some while in other parts of the narrative or in real life, there is significant suffering and lack. This could lead to questions about fairness or why help seems to be selective.