Contradiction with Leviticus 27:26
This verse indicates that the firstborn of animals, which should be the Lord's by default, can be substituted or redeemed, contradicting the absolute claim of Exodus 34:19.
Leviticus 27:26: Only the firstling of the beasts, which should be the LORD'S firstling, no man shall sanctify it; whether [it be] ox, or sheep: it [is] the LORD'S. [firstling of: Heb. firstborn, etc]
Contradiction with Numbers 3:45
Shows that the Levites are taken instead of every firstborn among the children of Israel, suggesting a substitution which contradicts the claim that all firstborns are the Lord's as stated in Exodus 34:19.
Numbers 3:45: Take the Levites instead of all the firstborn among the children of Israel, and the cattle of the Levites instead of their cattle; and the Levites shall be mine: I [am] the LORD.
Contradiction with Numbers 18:15-16
It states that the firstborn of man and unclean animals shall be redeemed, contradicting Exodus 34:19's indication of absolute ownership by the Lord.
Numbers 18:15-16: Every thing that openeth the matrix in all flesh, which they bring unto the LORD, [whether it be] of men or beasts, shall be thine: nevertheless the firstborn of man shalt thou surely redeem, and the firstling of unclean beasts shalt thou redeem.
Paradox #1
The verse might cause confusion because it discusses the concept of firstborn offerings, which can appear inconsistent with later teachings that emphasize mercy over sacrifice or that God does not desire animal sacrifices. This can lead to questions about why certain offerings were required in ancient times but later viewed differently.
Paradox #2
The contradiction or inconsistency related to Exodus 34:19 could be about the requirement for the consecration or dedication of firstborn males, which may seem at odds with other parts of Scripture that emphasize offering spiritual rather than physical sacrifices. In some interpretations, this ceremonial requirement could be seen as inconsistent with later teachings in the New Testament that focus more on the internal faith and less on external rituals.
Paradox #3
Exodus 34:19 talks about the firstborn. A contradiction could be that earlier in Exodus, there is a command to consecrate the firstborn (Exodus 13:2). However, later traditions allow for the redemption of firstborn humans through a substitute, like a lamb or money, which is not mentioned here. This shift might seem inconsistent in terms of the practice of offering firstborns.
Paradox #4
One possible scientific inconsistency in that verse could relate to the idea of ownership and sacrifice of firstborn animals. Scientifically, animals are not inherently owned by specific individuals and the concept of dedicating or sacrificing animals this way does not align with modern understanding of animal biology and ethics.
Paradox #5
The contradiction or conflict in that verse could be related to differing views on property and ownership. Some might see it as challenging the idea of personal autonomy or freedom in giving to others versus obligations set by authority or tradition. Others might question the ethics of mandatory offerings. These points can cause tension between personal beliefs and religious or cultural demands.