Contradiction with Matthew 5:5
Revelation 1:16 talks about a powerful and fearsome image of Christ, while Matthew 5:5 emphasizes meekness and humility, showing a different aspect of the nature of Christ.
Matthew 5:5: Blessed [are] the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.
Contradiction with Isaiah 53:2
Revelation 1:16 describes a glorious and radiant appearance, whereas Isaiah 53:2 presents a more humble and ordinary appearance of the Messiah.
Isaiah 53:2: For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, [there is] no beauty that we should desire him.
Contradiction with John 3:17
Revelation 1:16 includes a depiction of a sharp sword, symbolizing judgment, while John 3:17 emphasizes that Jesus came not to condemn the world, highlighting a different mission.
John 3:17: For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
Contradiction with 1 Kings 19:12
Revelation 1:16 describes a loud and commanding voice, while 1 Kings 19:12 illustrates God's presence in a "still small voice," portraying contrasting expressions of divine communication.
1 Kings 19:12: And after the earthquake a fire; [but] the LORD [was] not in the fire: and after the fire a still small voice.
Contradiction with Philippians 2:7
Revelation 1:16 depicts Christ in a powerful and divine form, but Philippians 2:7 discusses Christ taking the form of a servant, showing a contrasting level of divine majesty.
Philippians 2:7: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
Paradox #1
Revelation 1:16 describes a vision using symbolic language, which can lead to different interpretations. The contradiction or conflict might lie in how different readers or traditions understand the symbolism. For example, the imagery might be seen as literal by some and metaphorical by others, leading to conflicting interpretations about its meaning and significance. However, historically, there might not be a direct contradiction but rather differing views on the interpretation of the vivid imagery used in the vision.