Contradiction with Proverbs 21:1
This verse states that the heart of a king is in the hand of the Lord, suggesting divine control, whereas Daniel 6:14 portrays King Darius as seemingly powerless against his own decree.
Proverbs 21:1: The king's heart [is] in the hand of the LORD, [as] the rivers of water: he turneth it whithersoever he will.
Contradiction with Ecclesiastes 8:4
This verse claims that the king's word is powerful and final, which contradicts the struggle of King Darius in Daniel 6:14 where he cannot change his own law.
Ecclesiastes 8:4: Where the word of a king [is, there is] power: and who may say unto him, What doest thou?
Contradiction with Romans 13:1
This verse implies that all authorities are established by God, suggesting they have divine backing in their decisions, which conflicts with the apparent inability of King Darius to alter his decree.
Romans 13:1: Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. [ordained: or, ordered]
Contradiction with Esther 8:8
In this verse, the king is able to reverse a decree with another decree, which contradicts the situation in Daniel 6:14 where King Darius is unable to revoke his decree.
Esther 8:8: Write ye also for the Jews, as it liketh you, in the king's name, and seal [it] with the king's ring: for the writing which is written in the king's name, and sealed with the king's ring, may no man reverse.
Contradiction with Daniel 4:35
This verse emphasizes God's sovereign power to influence kings, contradicting the portrayal in Daniel 6:14 of King Darius feeling trapped by his own legislation.
Daniel 4:35: And all the inhabitants of the earth [are] reputed as nothing: and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and [among] the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?
Paradox #1
Daniel 6:14 presents a potential moral conflict in that it depicts a ruler, who is supposed to be just and powerful, feeling regret and trying to save someone from a punishment that he himself authorized due to being trapped by his own laws. This showcases a tension between upholding the rule of law and doing what is morally right, highlighting the complications that arise when following rules blindly without considering justice or compassion.