Contradiction with Exodus 20:13
"Thou shalt not kill" contradicts the command to dispossess and destroy inhabitants to possess the land.
Exodus 20:13: Thou shalt not kill.
Contradiction with Romans 12:19
The directive to trust in God's vengeance counters the instruction to take the land by force.
Romans 12:19: Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but [rather] give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance [is] mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.
Contradiction with Matthew 5:9
The blessing for peacemakers contrasts with the directive to drive out inhabitants.
Matthew 5:9: Blessed [are] the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.
Contradiction with Matthew 5:44
The teaching to love enemies contradicts the idea of conquering them for land possession.
Matthew 5:44: But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
Contradiction with Hebrews 12:14
The call to pursue peace with all men contradicts the forceful possession of the land.
Hebrews 12:14: Follow peace with all [men], and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord:
Paradox #1
The verse suggests taking possession of land, which can conflict with teachings about peace and love for others. It might seem inconsistent with messages that promote caring and justice for all people.
Paradox #2
The contradiction or conflict could revolve around the themes of possessing land by force versus principles of peace and love. Some parts of religious teachings emphasize compassion and peaceful coexistence, while others might seem to endorse taking land or property through aggressive means. This could appear inconsistent with the more pacifist teachings found elsewhere in religious texts.
Paradox #3
The potential contradiction regarding this verse is that archaeological evidence does not consistently support the large-scale conquest and settlement of Canaan as described in some biblical accounts. Historical and archaeological records often suggest a more gradual and complex process of settlement in the region.
Paradox #4
The moral conflict in this verse could be seen as the tension between the directive for the Israelites to take possession of the land, which involves displacing its current inhabitants, and the broader ethical principles of compassion and justice towards others. This directive might be seen as conflicting with values of peaceful coexistence and rights to land and home.