Contradiction with Genesis 1:16
This verse mentions God creating two great lights, the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night, emphasizing the importance of physical celestial bodies, whereas Isaiah 60:19 suggests a time where these will not be needed.
Genesis 1:16: And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: [he made] the stars also. [to rule the day...: Heb. for the rule of the day, etc.]
Contradiction with Jeremiah 31:35
This verse speaks of the ordinances of the sun and moon as being permanent, contrasting with Isaiah 60:19 which implies the sun and moon will no longer be necessary.
Jeremiah 31:35: Thus saith the LORD, which giveth the sun for a light by day, [and] the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; The LORD of hosts [is] his name:
Contradiction with Psalm 104:19
This verse states that the sun knows its time for setting, suggesting a regularity and necessity of the sun, which contradicts Isaiah 60:19's implication that the sun is not needed for light.
Psalm 104:19: He appointed the moon for seasons: the sun knoweth his going down.
Contradiction with Revelation 21:23
Although similar in theme to Isaiah 60:19, stating the glory of God will illuminate the city instead of the sun, it contrasts by focusing on a specific city rather than the broader context Isaiah 60:19 provides.
Revelation 21:23: And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb [is] the light thereof.
Paradox #1
The potential contradiction with Isaiah 60:19 might arise when comparing it to descriptions found in the Book of Revelation. In Isaiah, it suggests a future where there is no need for the sun or moon because God provides everlasting light. Revelation mentions a similar idea in the context of the New Jerusalem. Some might see this as a contradiction if they are taken as literal descriptions of different events or times. However, they are often interpreted symbolically as expressions of God's ultimate glory and presence, rather than contradictory facts.
Paradox #2
The contradiction or conflict with Isaiah 60:19 could stem from differing interpretations about whether it should be understood literally or metaphorically. Some might question how this vision aligns with the observable world or historical events, creating tension between expectation and reality if interpreted literally. Others might see it as metaphorical, which avoids direct conflict but can lead to differing theological understandings.
Paradox #3
Isaiah 60:19 suggests that natural sources of light such as the sun and moon are no longer needed because a divine presence provides light. Scientifically, this is inconsistent because the sun is essential for life on Earth, providing the necessary light and energy for ecosystems to thrive. Without the sun, the Earth would be inhospitably cold and dark.