Contradiction with Deuteronomy 19:11-13
These verses mandate that those who commit murder with malicious intent should be taken from the place of refuge and handed over for execution, contradicting the refuge provision in Joshua 20:4 for those seeking asylum until judged.
Deuteronomy 19:11-13: But if any man hate his neighbour, and lie in wait for him, and rise up against him, and smite him mortally that he die, and fleeth into one of these cities: [mortally: Heb. in life]
Contradiction with Exodus 21:14
States that if a person intentionally murders another, they should be taken from the altar (a place of refuge) to be put to death, contrary to the protection sought in Joshua 20:4.
Exodus 21:14: But if a man come presumptuously upon his neighbour, to slay him with guile; thou shalt take him from mine altar, that he may die.
Contradiction with Numbers 35:16-21
Prescribes death for a murderer, even if fleeing to a city of refuge, contrasting with the process described in Joshua 20:4, where the accused is granted protection until judged.
Numbers 35:16-21: And if he smite him with an instrument of iron, so that he die, he [is] a murderer: the murderer shall surely be put to death.
Contradiction with Genesis 9:6
Asserts that whoever sheds man's blood, by man shall their blood be shed, which opposes the conditional protection implied in Joshua 20:4 for those seeking refuge.
Genesis 9:6: Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.
Contradiction with Leviticus 24:17
Indicates that anyone who kills a human being is to be put to death, conflicting with the refuge provision before judgment mentioned in Joshua 20:4.
Leviticus 24:17: And he that killeth any man shall surely be put to death. [killeth...: Heb. smiteth the life of a man]
Paradox #1
This verse could present a contradiction because it involves the idea of fleeing to a city of refuge for safety after unintentionally causing harm or death. This raises questions about justice and accountability, as some might argue that even unintended actions should have consequences or require direct facing of the injured parties or families, rather than seeking protection that might prevent immediate responsibility.