Contradiction with Jeremiah 27:6-7
These verses imply that all nations would serve Nebuchadnezzar, his son, and his grandson, indicating a more extended rule than suggested by a succession of kingdoms in Daniel 2:39.
Jeremiah 27:6-7: And now have I given all these lands into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon, my servant; and the beasts of the field have I given him also to serve him.
Contradiction with Revelation 11:15
This verse states that the kingdoms of the world become the kingdoms of Christ, implying a final kingdom rather than multiple successive kingdoms.
Revelation 11:15: And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become [the kingdoms] of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever.
Contradiction with Matthew 28:18
This verse asserts that all power in heaven and earth is given to Jesus, suggesting a singular, everlasting dominion contradicting the idea of successive earthly kingdoms.
Matthew 28:18: And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
Contradiction with Daniel 7:14
States an everlasting dominion given to one like the Son of Man, challenging the concept of successive worldly empires.
Daniel 7:14: And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion [is] an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom [that] which shall not be destroyed.
Contradiction with Hebrews 1:8
Describes an eternal throne and kingdom attributed to the Son, contrasting with the temporary kingdoms mentioned in Daniel 2:39.
Hebrews 1:8: But unto the Son [he saith], Thy throne, O God, [is] for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness [is] the sceptre of thy kingdom. [righteousness: Gr. rightness, or, straightness]
Paradox #1
The contradiction or inconsistency related to this verse is that while it predicts a succession of empires after the Babylonian Empire, the specific identification of these empires is debated. Different interpretations suggest different kingdoms, which can lead to conflicts in historical timelines and identifications given no universally accepted explantion.