Contradiction with Exodus 8:22
This verse describes how God spared the land of Goshen from the plague of flies, suggesting selective protection, whereas Exodus 9:3 indicates a plague without specifying initial protection for Goshen's cattle.
Exodus 8:22: And I will sever in that day the land of Goshen, in which my people dwell, that no swarms [of flies] shall be there; to the end thou mayest know that I [am] the LORD in the midst of the earth.
Contradiction with Exodus 12:13
The plague of the firstborn is avoided through the blood of the lamb, implying direct intervention can prevent plagues, in contrast to the broader impact of the plague in Exodus 9:3.
Exodus 12:13: And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses where ye [are]: and when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and the plague shall not be upon you to destroy [you], when I smite the land of Egypt. [to destroy...: Heb. for a destruction]
Contradiction with Deuteronomy 7:15
This verse implies a promise to remove sickness from Israel, seemingly contradicting the plagues sent upon livestock in Exodus 9:3.
Deuteronomy 7:15: And the LORD will take away from thee all sickness, and will put none of the evil diseases of Egypt, which thou knowest, upon thee; but will lay them upon all [them] that hate thee.
Contradiction with Psalm 91:10
Assures that no plague will come near, yet Exodus 9:3 describes a plague affecting the Egyptians' cattle.
Psalm 91:10: There shall no evil befall thee, neither shall any plague come nigh thy dwelling.
Contradiction with Hebrews 12:6
Suggests that discipline comes from love, a contrast to the destructive nature of the plague in Exodus 9:3.
Hebrews 12:6: For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.
Paradox #1
Exodus 9:3 discusses a specific plague sent by God that affects the Egyptian livestock. A potential theological conflict might be the depiction of God causing suffering to animals and humans. This raises questions about the nature of a loving and compassionate God allowing or causing destruction and suffering. Some might struggle with understanding how this aligns with the image of a benevolent deity.
Paradox #2
The main issue some people might point out is the portrayal of God causing suffering to animals as part of the plagues, which could seem to conflict with ideas of a merciful and loving God. Others, however, interpret these actions within the broader context of the story and God's justice.
Paradox #3
The contradiction or inconsistency related to Exodus 9:3 may involve the sequence and impact of the plagues on Egypt. Some scholars question the logistics behind the rapid succession of the plagues or the historical evidence for such events impacting Egyptian society without leaving clear archaeological traces. Additionally, there are debates about the timing and geographic scope of these events since similar stories and motifs appear in broader Mesopotamian and Egyptian literature.
Paradox #4
The contradiction or inconsistency with Exodus 9:3 could be related to the idea of a widespread disease outbreak affecting only certain animals in a way that is controlled or predicted by a divine command, without any natural explanation. In modern science, diseases typically have natural causes and spread according to patterns explained by biology and environmental factors, rather than divine intervention.
Paradox #5
This verse highlights a contradiction in the sense that it depicts a situation where innocent animals suffer as a result of human disobedience. The conflict arises from the question of why animals, who have no part in human actions or decisions, are subjected to suffering and punishment. This raises issues about the justice and fairness of divine actions impacting those not at fault.