Contradiction with Jeremiah 10:13
Exodus 7:17 describes a supernatural act where water turns to blood as a sign of God's power, while Jeremiah 10:13 emphasizes God's control over nature through rain, not transforming substances.
Jeremiah 10:13: When he uttereth his voice, [there is] a multitude of waters in the heavens, and he causeth the vapours to ascend from the ends of the earth; he maketh lightnings with rain, and bringeth forth the wind out of his treasures. [multitude: or, noise] [with: or, for]
Contradiction with Isaiah 44:27
Exodus 7:17 shows God using His power to turn water to blood for a specific purpose, contradicting Isaiah 44:27 where God uses His power to dry up the sea as a display of control and salvation.
Isaiah 44:27: That saith to the deep, Be dry, and I will dry up thy rivers:
Contradiction with Revelation 22:1
Exodus 7:17 is about turning river water into blood as a plague, whereas Revelation 22:1 describes a pure river of life, symbolizing healing and eternal sustenance.
Revelation 22:1: And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.
Contradiction with Psalms 104:10
Exodus 7:17 involves turning water into blood, contradicting Psalms 104:10, which speaks of God providing clear, nourishing springs to sustain life.
Psalms 104:10: He sendeth the springs into the valleys, [which] run among the hills. [He: Heb. Who] [run: Heb. walk]
Paradox #1
Exodus 7:17 talks about the Nile River turning into blood. A contradiction or inconsistency could be that there is no independent historical or archaeological evidence outside of the Bible that supports such an event having occurred in ancient Egypt. Some historians and scholars argue that if the Nile had actually turned to blood, it would have had significant consequences for Egypt during that time, which would likely have been recorded in Egyptian records. However, no such documentation exists.
Paradox #2
Exodus 7:17 describes a miraculous event where water in the Nile River turns into blood. Scientifically, turning an entire river into blood would require a biological or chemical process that is not naturally feasible on such a large scale. For it to appear red, factors like red algae blooms or suspended sediments could be possible explanations in nature, but they do not literally turn water into blood. Therefore, the description of the event as literal blood conflicts with scientific understanding.
Paradox #3
The contradiction or conflict might be seen in the fact that it depicts a situation where innocent people suffer because of the actions of a leader or a few individuals, raising questions about collective punishment and justice.