Contradiction with Exodus 20:17
This verse commands against coveting, which implies respecting boundaries, in contrast to Hosea 5:10 where leaders are criticized for removing them.
Exodus 20:17: Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that [is] thy neighbour's.
Contradiction with Proverbs 22:28
Encourages not to remove ancient landmarks, contradicting the actions described in Hosea 5:10 where princes are rebuked for doing so.
Proverbs 22:28: Remove not the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have set. [landmark: or, bound]
Contradiction with Deuteronomy 19:14
Prohibits moving a neighbor's boundary stone, in direct opposition to the actions condemned in Hosea 5:10.
Deuteronomy 19:14: Thou shalt not remove thy neighbour's landmark, which they of old time have set in thine inheritance, which thou shalt inherit in the land that the LORD thy God giveth thee to possess it.
Contradiction with Deuteronomy 27:17
Pronounces a curse on those who move their neighbor's boundary stone, contradicting the behavior of leaders described in Hosea 5:10.
Deuteronomy 27:17: Cursed [be] he that removeth his neighbour's landmark. And all the people shall say, Amen.
Contradiction with Joshua 24:15
Speaks about choosing whom to serve, implying allegiance to divine law, contrasting with the disobedience among leaders mentioned in Hosea 5:10.
Joshua 24:15: And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that [were] on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.
Paradox #1
Hosea 5:10 accuses leaders of being like those who remove boundary stones, implying deceit and wrongdoing. A potential contradiction might be that leaders are expected to uphold justice and fairness, but here they are depicted as undermining established laws and order. This could be seen as inconsistent with the responsibility of leaders to maintain moral and ethical standards.