Contradiction with Joshua 4:18
Describes the same event with the waters returning immediately after the priests left the river, not allowing for any time lapse.
Joshua 4:18: And it came to pass, when the priests that bare the ark of the covenant of the LORD were come up out of the midst of Jordan, [and] the soles of the priests' feet were lifted up unto the dry land, that the waters of Jordan returned unto their place, and flowed over all his banks, as [they did] before. [lifted...: Heb. plucked up] [flowed: Heb. went]
Contradiction with Joshua 3:15
States the Jordan overflows its banks during harvest, suggesting it was impassable, contradicting the ease described in Joshua 3:16.
Joshua 3:15: And as they that bare the ark were come unto Jordan, and the feet of the priests that bare the ark were dipped in the brim of the water, (for Jordan overfloweth all his banks all the time of harvest,)
Contradiction with Exodus 14:21
Describes the parting of the Red Sea by a strong wind, contrasting with the immediate stopping of the Jordan River in Joshua 3:16.
Exodus 14:21: And Moses stretched out his hand over the sea; and the LORD caused the sea to go [back] by a strong east wind all that night, and made the sea dry [land], and the waters were divided.
Contradiction with 2 Kings 2:8
Elijah parts the Jordan by striking it with his mantle, implying a different method than what was described in Joshua 3:16.
2 Kings 2:8: And Elijah took his mantle, and wrapped [it] together, and smote the waters, and they were divided hither and thither, so that they two went over on dry ground.
Paradox #1
The contradiction in this context could be related to the description of a river stopping and forming a heap, which goes against the natural behavior of flowing water. Normally, rivers do not halt in place without a physical barrier or natural phenomenon causing the stoppage, which could seem inconsistent with our understanding of fluid dynamics.