Contradiction with Numbers 14:34
Ezekiel 4:6 uses a day to represent a year as God instructs Ezekiel for an enacted prophecy, while Numbers 14:34 utilizes the day-for-a-year principle as a judgment for Israel’s lack of faith, illustrating different contexts for the same principle.
Numbers 14:34: After the number of the days in which ye searched the land, [even] forty days, each day for a year, shall ye bear your iniquities, [even] forty years, and ye shall know my breach of promise. [breach...: or, altering of my purpose]
Contradiction with Genesis 41:1
Ezekiel’s symbolic act involves days transforming into years for prophecy, whereas in Genesis 41:1, dreams and predictions are fulfilled literally without symbolic year-day conversions, which conveys a direct instead of symbolic time.
Genesis 41:1: And it came to pass at the end of two full years, that Pharaoh dreamed: and, behold, he stood by the river.
Contradiction with 2 Peter 3:8
Ezekiel 4:6 operates on a specific prophetic timeline in which a day symbolizes a year, contrasting with the verse in 2 Peter 3:8 that states a day is like a thousand years to God, indicating God's perspective on time not confined to specific formulas.
2 Peter 3:8: But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day [is] with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
Contradiction with Daniel 9:24
While Ezekiel 4:6 uses days to symbolize years for punishment prophecy, Daniel uses weeks (heptads) for prophetic timeline, demonstrating differing symbolic time frames for divine messages.
Daniel 9:24: Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy. [finish: or, restrain] [make an...: or, seal up] [prophecy: Heb. prophet]
Contradiction with Revelation 11:3
Ezekiel 4:6 uses a day-year equivalence, while Revelation 11:3 speaks of a literal timeframe of days for prophetic witness, illustrating a literal versus symbolic time period discrepancy.
Revelation 11:3: And I will give [power] unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred [and] threescore days, clothed in sackcloth. [I will give...: or, I will give unto my two witnesses that they may prophesy]
Paradox #1
Ezekiel 4:6 could be seen as inconsistent with other interpretations of prophetic actions in the Bible. The verse involves symbolic actions representing time, specifically using days to represent years, which might conflict with other instances in the Bible where prophetic symbols or numbers are interpreted differently. This can lead to debates on whether these representations should always be consistent or are context-specific.
Paradox #2
Ezekiel 4:6 discusses a symbolic act involving days that are meant to represent years. A potential contradiction could arise with interpretations of prophecy and symbolic time periods, particularly when considering other passages that use similar symbolic language (like in Daniel or Revelation). Different interpretations may lead to conflicts about how prophetic timelines should be understood or applied.
Paradox #3
The contradiction or conflict with Ezekiel 4:6 is that it mentions a period of punishment lasting 40 days, which symbolizes 40 years. This contrasts with other biblical texts, like Numbers 14:34 and some interpretations of Israel's history, that use different numbers of days or years to symbolize periods of punishment or wandering. This inconsistency in symbolic timing can be confusing for readers trying to reconcile different parts of the Bible.
Paradox #4
The contradiction or conflict might arise from the unusual command given in the verse, which could be seen as strange or difficult to understand from a moral or ethical standpoint. It may lead to questions about why such specific and symbolic actions are required and how they relate to personal responsibility or understanding. This can be perplexing for those trying to reconcile the command with their own moral framework or cultural norms.