Contradiction with Deuteronomy 31:6
This verse speaks of God's constant presence and assistance, which contrasts with the idea that God would abandon Rehoboam in 2 Chronicles 12:2.
Deuteronomy 31:6: Be strong and of a good courage, fear not, nor be afraid of them: for the LORD thy God, he [it is] that doth go with thee; he will not fail thee, nor forsake thee.
Contradiction with Romans 8:31
States that if God is for us, no one can be against us, which contradicts the notion of God allowing a king to rise against Israel in 2 Chronicles 12:2.
Romans 8:31: What shall we then say to these things? If God [be] for us, who [can be] against us?
Contradiction with Psalm 46:1
Describes God as a refuge and strength, always present to help in trouble, unlike in 2 Chronicles 12:2 where it implies God withdrew His protection due to Rehoboam's sins.
Psalm 46:1: [To the chief Musician for the sons of Korah, A Song upon Alamoth.] God [is] our refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble. [for: or, of]
Contradiction with 1 Samuel 12:22
Assures that the Lord will not forsake His people for His great name's sake, contradicting the forsaking implied in 2 Chronicles 12:2.
1 Samuel 12:22: For the LORD will not forsake his people for his great name's sake: because it hath pleased the LORD to make you his people.
Contradiction with Hebrews 13:5
Promises that God will never leave or forsake believers, in contrast to the actions described in 2 Chronicles 12:2.
Hebrews 13:5: [Let your] conversation [be] without covetousness; [and be] content with such things as ye have: for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee.
Paradox #1
The contradiction can arise from different accounts of the events surrounding King Rehoboam's reign and Shishak's invasion in other historical records, such as Egyptian records. The timing and details may not perfectly align, leading to questions about accuracy and consistency between the biblical narrative and archaeological findings.
Paradox #2
The potential contradiction in this verse arises from questioning why people are punished for the actions or decisions of their leaders. It can seem inconsistent because it raises concerns about communal punishment and responsibility, where individuals suffer consequences due to a leader's choices rather than their own actions.