Contradiction with Leviticus 17:11
States that it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul, whereas 2 Chronicles 30:17 focuses on burnt offerings for sanctification.
Leviticus 17:11: For the life of the flesh [is] in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it [is] the blood [that] maketh an atonement for the soul.
Contradiction with Numbers 19:20
Specifies that anyone who is not purified shall be cut off from the congregation, whereas 2 Chronicles 30:17 involves the priests sacrificing for those who were not purified.
Numbers 19:20: But the man that shall be unclean, and shall not purify himself, that soul shall be cut off from among the congregation, because he hath defiled the sanctuary of the LORD: the water of separation hath not been sprinkled upon him; he [is] unclean.
Contradiction with Hebrews 10:4
Claims it is not possible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins, contradicting the idea that animal sacrifices in 2 Chronicles 30:17 could contribute to sanctification.
Hebrews 10:4: For [it is] not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.
Contradiction with Psalm 40:6
Suggests God does not desire burnt offerings and sacrifices, contrary to the practice described in 2 Chronicles 30:17.
Psalm 40:6: Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened: burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required. [opened: Heb. digged]
Contradiction with Isaiah 1:11
States God has had enough of burnt offerings of rams, which opposes the ritual followed in 2 Chronicles 30:17.
Isaiah 1:11: To what purpose [is] the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the LORD: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats. [he goats: Heb. great he goats]
Paradox #1
The contradiction in this context may arise from the idea that some of the people were allowed to participate in religious rituals and celebrations even though they had not purified themselves according to the traditional laws. This can conflict with the notion of strict adherence to the rules and laws that were believed necessary for religious practices. This situation could be seen as inconsistent with the law's importance or with fairness towards those who followed the rules closely.