Contradiction with Exodus 32:19
Deuteronomy 9:17 states that Moses broke both tablets, emphasizing his reaction to the idolatry of the Israelites. In Exodus 32:19, Moses’ reaction is similarly described, so it does not inherently contradict, but it potentially adds nuance or a different perspective to the incident rather than presenting a direct contradiction.
Exodus 32:19: And it came to pass, as soon as he came nigh unto the camp, that he saw the calf, and the dancing: and Moses' anger waxed hot, and he cast the tables out of his hands, and brake them beneath the mount.
Contradiction with Deuteronomy 10:2
This verse explains that God instructed Moses to make new tablets to replace the ones he broke, which doesn't contradict directly but resolves the issue of the tablets being broken by providing a continuation of the narrative.
Deuteronomy 10:2: And I will write on the tables the words that were in the first tables which thou brakest, and thou shalt put them in the ark.
Contradiction with Deuteronomy 10:5
Here, Moses places the new tablets in the ark, indicating the covenant was renewed. While not a direct contradiction, it complements Deuteronomy 9:17 by showing the restoration after the breaking of the tablets.
Deuteronomy 10:5: And I turned myself and came down from the mount, and put the tables in the ark which I had made; and there they be, as the LORD commanded me.
Paradox #1
One possible contradiction is in comparing Deuteronomy 9:17 with Exodus 32:19. Both passages describe Moses breaking the stone tablets, but there are slight differences in how the events are recounted. These variations might lead to questions about the consistency in the details of the story between the two books.
Paradox #2
The moral conflict in this verse could be seen in the act of Moses breaking the tablets that had God's commandments on them. This can be viewed as a contradiction because it involves destroying something sacred that was directly given by God. On one hand, this act reflects Moses' anger and disappointment with the people for their disobedience. On the other hand, it raises questions about the destruction of something holy and whether anger justifies such an action.