Contradiction with Matthew 5:5
Deuteronomy 11:24 promises land to Israel without implying meekness, while Matthew 5:5 blesses the meek as inheritors of the earth, suggesting a different prerequisite.
Matthew 5:5: Blessed [are] the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.
Contradiction with Hebrews 11:13
Deuteronomy 11:24 promises physical land possession, whereas Hebrews 11:13 speaks of early believers seeing promises afar off without receiving them, indicating a spiritual, rather than earthly, fulfillment.
Hebrews 11:13: These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of [them], and embraced [them], and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth. [in faith: Gr. according to faith]
Contradiction with John 18:36
Deuteronomy 11:24 speaks of earthly dominion, while John 18:36 describes Jesus' kingdom as not of this world, contrasting temporal and spiritual reigns.
John 18:36: Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.
Contradiction with Acts 7:5
Deuteronomy 11:24 assures possession of land, yet Acts 7:5 recounts God giving Abraham no inheritance in it, even a foot of ground, highlighting a contradiction between promise and immediate fulfillment.
Acts 7:5: And he gave him none inheritance in it, no, not [so much as] to set his foot on: yet he promised that he would give it to him for a possession, and to his seed after him, when [as yet] he had no child.
Paradox #1
Deuteronomy 11:24 could contradict or conflict with the idea of fairness or equality, as it promises specific lands to a particular group of people, which could be seen as giving one group special treatment over others. This might seem inconsistent with messages of universal fairness or justice.
Paradox #2
Deuteronomy 11:24 describes a promise of land given to the Israelites, with specific boundaries. Historically, there is a contradiction because the area described was never fully controlled by the Israelites at any single point in history. Additionally, the regions mentioned often had established populations and boundaries, leading to inconsistencies when compared with historical and archaeological records of settlement patterns during that time.
Paradox #3
The potential contradiction in Deuteronomy 11:24 could be related to the idea of claiming land. It may be seen as conflicting with modern ideas about respecting the rights and territories of others, promoting peaceful coexistence, and avoiding conflict over land ownership. This could be viewed as inconsistent with the ethical principles of mutual respect and non-aggression.