Contradiction with Exodus 20:9
This verse speaks of six days for labor and work, contrasting with the concept of resting the land every seventh year in Leviticus 25:2.
Exodus 20:9: Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
Contradiction with Genesis 8:22
This verse suggests a continual cycle of seedtime and harvest, contradicting the commanded rest for the land in the seventh year.
Genesis 8:22: While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease. [While...: Heb. As yet all the days of the earth]
Contradiction with Matthew 6:26
This verse highlights God's provision for the birds who do not sow or reap, potentially contrasting with the notion of planned agricultural rest in Leviticus 25:2.
Matthew 6:26: Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?
Contradiction with 2 Thessalonians 3:10
This verse emphasizes the necessity of work for eating, which might be seen as contradictory to the idea of allowing the land to rest.
2 Thessalonians 3:10: For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.
Paradox #1
Theological conflict might arise regarding the command for the land to have a Sabbath rest, questioning how this aligns with human needs for continuous food production and survival. Balancing rest for the land with survival needs can pose a challenge or inconsistency in practical applications.
Paradox #2
The conflict in Leviticus 25:2 relates to the instructions about letting the land rest every seven years. Historically, there is little evidence that ancient Israel consistently followed this practice. This lack of archaeological or historical confirmation might suggest inconsistency between the text and actual historical practice.
Paradox #3
The contradiction in Leviticus 25:2 could arise from the idea of resting the land every seventh year, known as the Sabbath year. While it promotes care for the earth, it might conflict with the need for continuous food production to support growing populations. Balancing environmental care with human needs could present a challenging ethical dilemma.