Contradiction with Psalm 20:7
While 2 Kings 18:19 questions reliance on external sources, this verse encourages trust in the name of the Lord rather than in human means.
Psalm 20:7: Some [trust] in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God.
Contradiction with Jeremiah 17:5
This verse contrasts with 2 Kings 18:19 by declaring a curse on those who place their trust in human strength and wisdom, asserting the superiority of relying on God.
Jeremiah 17:5: Thus saith the LORD; Cursed [be] the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD.
Contradiction with Proverbs 3:5
It contradicts 2 Kings 18:19 by advising complete trust in the Lord and not to lean on one's own understanding, implying faith over human strategies.
Proverbs 3:5: Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.
Contradiction with Isaiah 31:1
Opposes the message in 2 Kings 18:19 by warning against seeking help through human efforts rather than looking to the Holy One of Israel.
Isaiah 31:1: Woe to them that go down to Egypt for help; and stay on horses, and trust in chariots, because [they are] many; and in horsemen, because they are very strong; but they look not unto the Holy One of Israel, neither seek the LORD!
Contradiction with 2 Chronicles 32:7-8
Contradicts by showing faith in God's greater support versus the reliance on mere human power implied in 2 Kings 18:19.
2 Chronicles 32:7-8: Be strong and courageous, be not afraid nor dismayed for the king of Assyria, nor for all the multitude that [is] with him: for [there be] more with us than with him:
Paradox #1
The potential contradiction with 2 Kings 18:19 involves differing accounts of King Hezekiah's interactions with the Assyrian king. In 2 Kings, there is a narrative about the Assyrian envoy's message to Hezekiah, while in 2 Chronicles and Isaiah, similar events are described with minor differences in detail and tone. These discrepancies could lead to questions about which account is more historically accurate.