Contradiction with Job 27:17
This verse suggests that the wealth amassed by the wicked will ultimately be worn or used by the just, implying futility in their efforts, contrary to the belief that wealth brings security or lasting benefit.
Job 27:17: He may prepare [it], but the just shall put [it] on, and the innocent shall divide the silver.
Contradiction with Proverbs 13:22
A good man leaves an inheritance to his children's children, contrasting with the fate of wealth accumulated by the wicked in Job 27:16.
Proverbs 13:22: A good [man] leaveth an inheritance to his children's children: and the wealth of the sinner [is] laid up for the just.
Contradiction with Psalm 39:6
Implies that accumulation of wealth is ultimately vain as it is often left to others, echoing the idea that piling up silver and raiment is futile.
Psalm 39:6: Surely every man walketh in a vain shew: surely they are disquieted in vain: he heapeth up [riches], and knoweth not who shall gather them. [a vain...: Heb. an image]
Contradiction with Ecclesiastes 2:26
Indicates that the sinner's task of gathering may be in vain as it will be given to one who pleases God, opposing the security believed to be in wealth.
Ecclesiastes 2:26: For [God] giveth to a man that [is] good in his sight wisdom, and knowledge, and joy: but to the sinner he giveth travail, to gather and to heap up, that he may give to [him that is] good before God. This also [is] vanity and vexation of spirit. [in his...: Heb. before him]
Contradiction with James 5:1-3
Warns the rich of miseries due to the perishability and uselessness of their hoarded wealth, aligning with the notion of the ultimate futility of amassed riches described in Job 27:16.
James 5:1-3: Go to now, [ye] rich men, weep and howl for your miseries that shall come upon [you].
Paradox #1
The verse suggests that wealth collected by wrongdoers will eventually benefit the righteous. The contradiction here could be that it seems to promote the idea that it's acceptable for wealth to be accumulated through wrongdoing, as long as it ultimately benefits good people. This might conflict with the moral principle that wrongful acts are undesirable, regardless of the eventual outcome.