Contradiction with Exodus 14:22
Contradicts Exodus 13:18 by describing the Israelites crossing the Red Sea on dry land with walls of water on both sides, implying not a simple route through the wilderness.
Exodus 14:22: And the children of Israel went into the midst of the sea upon the dry [ground]: and the waters [were] a wall unto them on their right hand, and on their left.
Contradiction with Numbers 33:8
Suggests that the Israelites traveled through a much longer and complex route, passing through many locations contrary to a straightforward journey described in Exodus 13:18.
Numbers 33:8: And they departed from before Pihahiroth, and passed through the midst of the sea into the wilderness, and went three days' journey in the wilderness of Etham, and pitched in Marah.
Contradiction with Deuteronomy 8:2
Indicating a wandering of forty years in the wilderness, contradicting the implication of a direct path in Exodus 13:18.
Deuteronomy 8:2: And thou shalt remember all the way which the LORD thy God led thee these forty years in the wilderness, to humble thee, [and] to prove thee, to know what [was] in thine heart, whether thou wouldest keep his commandments, or no.
Contradiction with Judges 2:23
Describes the continued presence of other nations in the land, which contrasts with the swift and protective nature of the journey suggested in Exodus 13:18.
Judges 2:23: Therefore the LORD left those nations, without driving them out hastily; neither delivered he them into the hand of Joshua. [left: or, suffered]
Contradiction with Psalm 77:19
Describes God's path as being in the sea and waters, which presents a different imagery than the straightforward wilderness route in Exodus 13:18.
Psalm 77:19: Thy way [is] in the sea, and thy path in the great waters, and thy footsteps are not known.
Paradox #1
Exodus 13:18 suggests that the Israelites took an indirect route to leave Egypt to avoid potential conflicts with other peoples. Some historical or geographical inconsistencies might arise in discussions about the specifics of the route taken, since exact historical or archaeological evidence for the journey is unclear or debated, leading to various interpretations and theories.