Contradiction with Exodus 9:4
There shall be a division between the cattle of Israel and the cattle of Egypt, implying Israelite cattle were unharmed.
Exodus 9:4: And the LORD shall sever between the cattle of Israel and the cattle of Egypt: and there shall nothing die of all [that is] the children's of Israel.
Contradiction with Exodus 10:15
Considers damage by locusts, not hail, yet all previous growth was destroyed, overlapping devastation.
Exodus 10:15: For they covered the face of the whole earth, so that the land was darkened; and they did eat every herb of the land, and all the fruit of the trees which the hail had left: and there remained not any green thing in the trees, or in the herbs of the field, through all the land of Egypt.
Contradiction with Psalm 78:47-48
Contradicts with the extent in Exodus, mentions the hail caused vines' death, not everything in fields.
Psalm 78:47-48: He destroyed their vines with hail, and their sycomore trees with frost. [destroyed: Heb. killed] [frost: or, great hailstones]
Contradiction with Genesis 45:6
Describes famine damage, potentially conflicting with total destruction by hail if crops were already scarce.
Genesis 45:6: For these two years [hath] the famine [been] in the land: and yet [there are] five years, in the which [there shall] neither [be] earing nor harvest.
Contradiction with Exodus 10:5
Further destruction by locusts seems redundant if hail already destroyed everything in the field.
Exodus 10:5: And they shall cover the face of the earth, that one cannot be able to see the earth: and they shall eat the residue of that which is escaped, which remaineth unto you from the hail, and shall eat every tree which groweth for you out of the field: [face: Heb. eye]
Contradiction with Psalm 105:32-33
Describes hail destroying only "vines," yet Exodus 9:25 claims "all" the field was destroyed.
Psalm 105:32-33: He gave them hail for rain, [and] flaming fire in their land. [them...: Heb. their rain hail]
Paradox #1
Exodus 9:25 describes a scenario where a severe storm kills all animals and plants in an area. A contradiction might arise from the fact that such a storm, strong enough to kill all life forms, would likely have lasting environmental impacts. However, later biblical texts describe thriving agriculture and livestock soon after, which seems inconsistent with the recovery time needed after such a catastrophic event in real life.
Paradox #2
The contradiction in this scenario could be that a loving and all-powerful God causes widespread destruction and suffering. This can conflict with the idea of a benevolent deity who is supposed to care for all creation, as causing harm may seem inconsistent with love and protection.