Contradiction with 1 Samuel 8:11-18
This passage describes how a king will take from the people to build his own power, which contradicts the notion in Proverbs 29:4 that a king establishes the land by justice.
1 Samuel 8:11-18: And he said, This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint [them] for himself, for his chariots, and [to be] his horsemen; and [some] shall run before his chariots.
Contradiction with Ecclesiastes 4:1
This verse speaks of oppression and the lack of comfort for the oppressed, which contrasts with the establishment of a land by judgment mentioned in Proverbs 29:4.
Ecclesiastes 4:1: So I returned, and considered all the oppressions that are done under the sun: and behold the tears of [such as were] oppressed, and they had no comforter; and on the side of their oppressors [there was] power; but they had no comforter. [side: Heb. hand]
Contradiction with Isaiah 10:1-2
These verses warn against unjust laws and oppressors, which contradicts the establishment of a kingdom through justice as suggested in Proverbs 29:4.
Isaiah 10:1-2: Woe unto them that decree unrighteous decrees, and that write grievousness [which] they have prescribed; [that write...: or, to the writers that write grievousness]
Contradiction with Hosea 10:13
It speaks to reaping injustice and deceit, which contrasts with a just and stable regime described in Proverbs 29:4.
Hosea 10:13: Ye have plowed wickedness, ye have reaped iniquity; ye have eaten the fruit of lies: because thou didst trust in thy way, in the multitude of thy mighty men.
Contradiction with Micah 3:9-11
Here leaders are criticized for injustices, taking bribes and distorting equity, conflicting with the theme of fair governance and stability in Proverbs 29:4.
Micah 3:9-11: Hear this, I pray you, ye heads of the house of Jacob, and princes of the house of Israel, that abhor judgment, and pervert all equity.
Paradox #1
Proverbs 29:4 mentions the importance of a ruler promoting justice to establish a nation. A potential contradiction could arise if one interprets this as suggesting that the success of a nation depends solely on its leader's just actions, ignoring the complex and cooperative roles of other social structures and individuals in maintaining justice. Hence, the idea that one person's actions alone can stabilize a whole nation may conflict with the belief in collective responsibility and action.