Contradiction with Proverbs 3:5
Nehemiah 9:29 emphasizes the importance of obedience to God's laws, while Proverbs 3:5 encourages trust in God rather than relying solely on one's own understanding, which could be seen as a contrast between legal adherence and personal faith.
Proverbs 3:5: Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.
Contradiction with Romans 3:20
Nehemiah 9:29 suggests life through adherence to God's law, whereas Romans 3:20 states that no one will be justified by the law, highlighting a distinction between law and grace.
Romans 3:20: Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law [is] the knowledge of sin.
Contradiction with Galatians 3:11
Nehemiah 9:29 implies the justice and goodness of following God's commandments, but Galatians 3:11 claims that no one is justified by the law in the sight of God, emphasizing faith over law.
Galatians 3:11: But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, [it is] evident: for, The just shall live by faith.
Contradiction with James 2:10
Nehemiah 9:29 encourages keeping commandments for righteousness, while James 2:10 explains that failing in one point of the law makes one guilty of all, suggesting the impossibility of perfect law adherence.
James 2:10: For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one [point], he is guilty of all.
Contradiction with Isaiah 64:6
Nehemiah 9:29 suggests righteousness through the law, but Isaiah 64:6 asserts that all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags, indicating human inability to achieve righteousness through deeds.
Isaiah 64:6: But we are all as an unclean [thing], and all our righteousnesses [are] as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.
Paradox #1
The contradiction, inconsistency, or conflict in Nehemiah 9:29 might arise from the expectation that people follow God's laws for their own good but often rebel or choose not to listen, causing negative consequences. This can create a tension between the idea of free will and the expectation of obedience, as well as the question of why consequences are necessary if people are meant to have free choice.