Contradiction with Jeremiah 17:9
Proverbs 16:10 suggests divine wisdom in the king’s decisions, while Jeremiah 17:9 warns that the human heart is deceitful, implying fallibility in human judgment.
Jeremiah 17:9: The heart [is] deceitful above all [things], and desperately wicked: who can know it?
Contradiction with Romans 3:23
Proverbs 16:10 implies faultless judgment from a king, whereas Romans 3:23 states all have sinned and fall short, suggesting no human, including kings, is infallible.
Romans 3:23: For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
Contradiction with Ecclesiastes 7:20
Proverbs 16:10 reflects flawless decision-making by a king, but Ecclesiastes 7:20 asserts that no righteous person is without sin on earth, including in judgment.
Ecclesiastes 7:20: For [there is] not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not.
Contradiction with 1 Samuel 8:6-7
Proverbs 16:10 indicates divine guidance in a king’s words, whereas 1 Samuel 8:6-7 depicts God’s acknowledgment of humans' desire for a king as a rejection of divine rule, implying fallibility in their human kings.
1 Samuel 8:6-7: But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the LORD. [displeased: Heb. was evil in the eyes of]
Contradiction with Isaiah 40:23
Proverbs 16:10 conveys kingly authority and divine backing, while Isaiah 40:23 emphasizes that rulers are ultimately nothing without God’s empowerment, questioning their independent infallibility.
Isaiah 40:23: That bringeth the princes to nothing; he maketh the judges of the earth as vanity.
Contradiction with Hosea 13:11
Proverbs 16:10 affirms the divine judgment of a king, whereas Hosea 13:11 implies that God gave a king in anger and took him away in wrath, suggesting divine displeasure with human kings.
Hosea 13:11: I gave thee a king in mine anger, and took [him] away in my wrath.
Paradox #1
The verse suggests that a king's words are guided by divine wisdom and should be just. The potential contradiction arises when considering that throughout history, not all kings have spoken or acted justly or wisely. This raises questions about the extent to which divine guidance is present in a ruler's decisions if they are unjust or immoral.
Paradox #2
The potential issue with Proverbs 16:10 could be the idea that a king’s decisions are seen as divinely guided, which might contradict other Bible passages emphasizing human fallibility and the need for accountability and humility before God. This could be seen as conflicting with the idea that only God is infallible.
Paradox #3
Some people point out that the idea of kings making wise and fair decisions, as suggested in this verse, might not always match historical reality. In history, there have been many kings and rulers who acted unjustly or selfishly, which might create a contradiction with the verse's implication.
Paradox #4
The contradiction could be the idea that a ruler's decisions are always guided by divine insight or truth. Scientifically, decision-making is understood to be influenced by a person's knowledge, experiences, biases, and emotions, rather than guaranteed divine guidance.
Paradox #5
This verse suggests that a ruler's words and decisions are always right and guided by a higher power. The moral conflict arises when we consider that leaders can also make mistakes or act unjustly. It contradicts the idea that all humans, including leaders, are fallible and should be accountable for their actions.