Contradiction with Deuteronomy 31:6
While Ezekiel 16:8 speaks of God entering into a covenant adorned with love, Deuteronomy 31:6 emphasizes God's constant presence and faithfulness, suggesting a contradiction regarding the conditions of God's commitment.
Deuteronomy 31:6: Be strong and of a good courage, fear not, nor be afraid of them: for the LORD thy God, he [it is] that doth go with thee; he will not fail thee, nor forsake thee.
Contradiction with Hebrews 13:5
Ezekiel 16:8 describes God's covenant likened to a marriage, but Hebrews 13:5 declares God's promise to never leave nor forsake, implying an unconditional loyalty that contrasts with the conditional covenant in Ezekiel.
Hebrews 13:5: [Let your] conversation [be] without covetousness; [and be] content with such things as ye have: for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee.
Contradiction with Hosea 2:2
Ezekiel 16:8 highlights God’s protection and covenant with Israel, whereas Hosea 2:2 speaks of God's call to Israel as adulterous and the impending cessation of her covenant status.
Hosea 2:2: Plead with your mother, plead: for she [is] not my wife, neither [am] I her husband: let her therefore put away her whoredoms out of her sight, and her adulteries from between her breasts;
Contradiction with Jeremiah 3:1
While Ezekiel 16:8 portrays God's covenant similar to a marriage with Israel, Jeremiah 3:1 presents a scenario where Israel's breaches of faith might preclude restoration, challenging the permanence of the covenant.
Jeremiah 3:1: They say, If a man put away his wife, and she go from him, and become another man's, shall he return unto her again? shall not that land be greatly polluted? but thou hast played the harlot with many lovers; yet return again to me, saith the LORD. [They say: Heb. Saying]
Contradiction with Jeremiah 31:32
Ezekiel 16:8 describes a covenant relationship, yet Jeremiah 31:32 refers to the covenant being broken by Israel, suggesting the covenant was conditional rather than everlasting.
Jeremiah 31:32: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day [that] I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: [although...: or, should I have continued an husband unto them?]
Paradox #1
Ezekiel 16:8 could be seen as potentially conflicting with other parts of the Bible that depict God as unchanging and eternal in His decisions or actions. This verse uses metaphorical language to describe God's relationship with Israel in terms of a marriage covenant, which implies a change from a previous state where there was no such covenant. Some might see a tension between this depiction and the idea of God's eternal consistency.
Paradox #2
"Ezekiel 16:8" might raise contradictions or conflicts because it uses marriage imagery to describe God's relationship with Jerusalem. Some people might find this portrayal problematic, as it involves possessiveness or control, which could be seen as inconsistent with modern views on equality and freedom in relationships. This could lead to debates about whether such images should be applied to divine-human relationships.