Contradiction with Leviticus 24:19-20
These verses emphasize an eye for an eye principle, contrasting Deuteronomy's path of granting refuge.
Leviticus 24:19-20: And if a man cause a blemish in his neighbour; as he hath done, so shall it be done to him;
Contradiction with Exodus 21:23-25
These passages uphold the law of retaliation, differing from Deuteronomy 19:9 which promotes legal procedure and protection.
Exodus 21:23-25: And if [any] mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,
Contradiction with Numbers 35:19
Encourages the avenger of blood to act, opposing the cities of refuge setup in Deuteronomy 19:9.
Numbers 35:19: The revenger of blood himself shall slay the murderer: when he meeteth him, he shall slay him.
Contradiction with Genesis 9:6
The emphasis on shedding blood for murder contradicts the protective measures of Deuteronomy 19:9.
Genesis 9:6: Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.
Contradiction with Romans 12:19
Advocates leaving vengeance to God, contrasting Deuteronomy 19:9's focus on human-managed justice and refuge.
Romans 12:19: Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but [rather] give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance [is] mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.
Contradiction with Matthew 5:38-39
Jesus teaching against retaliation conflicts with the judicial structure in Deuteronomy 19:9 which involves human judgment.
Matthew 5:38-39: Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
Paradox #1
The potential contradiction in Deuteronomy 19:9 could involve the concept of justice versus mercy. The verse discusses setting aside cities for people to flee if they accidentally kill someone, ensuring they are not unjustly punished. The conflict might arise from balancing the need for justice for the victim's family and offering protection and mercy to someone who did not intend harm. This can lead to debates about whether mercy should override retribution or vice versa.