Contradiction with Leviticus 25:23
Leviticus 25:23 states that the land shall not be sold permanently as it belongs to God, which may contrast with the idea of land returning to the original owner during the Jubilee in Leviticus 27:21.
Leviticus 25:23: The land shall not be sold for ever: for the land [is] mine; for ye [are] strangers and sojourners with me. [for ever: or, to be quite cut off: Heb. for cutting off]
Contradiction with Numbers 36:7
Numbers 36:7 dictates that inheritance should not transfer between tribes, which could contradict the redistribution of land during the Jubilee year as implied in Leviticus 27:21.
Numbers 36:7: So shall not the inheritance of the children of Israel remove from tribe to tribe: for every one of the children of Israel shall keep himself to the inheritance of the tribe of his fathers. [keep...: Heb. cleave to the, etc]
Contradiction with Ezekiel 46:17
Ezekiel 46:17 indicates that property given for an inheritance can be returned during the year of liberty, which underscores a different perspective on property rights compared to Leviticus 27:21.
Ezekiel 46:17: But if he give a gift of his inheritance to one of his servants, then it shall be his to the year of liberty; after it shall return to the prince: but his inheritance shall be his sons' for them.
Paradox #1
The contradiction or inconsistency with Leviticus 27:21 might relate to the concept of property ownership and land dedication to God, which could conflict with other societal norms or laws about land ownership and inheritance in ancient times. Different tribes or groups might have had varying practices and traditions, leading to potential conflicts with this directive.
Paradox #2
The potential contradiction in Leviticus 27:21 is the idea of land ownership and the concept of land being "holy" or set apart for God. Some may view this as conflicting with the belief that all land is inherently sacred or should be shared equally among people, rather than belonging to specific individuals or groups based on religious rules. This could be seen as inconsistent with more modern ideas of equality and communal sharing.