Contradiction with Hebrews 10:4
This verse states that the blood of bulls and goats cannot take away sins, contradicting the idea in Exodus 24:8 where blood is used as a covenant symbol of forgiveness.
Hebrews 10:4: For [it is] not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.
Contradiction with Hebrews 9:12
This verse describes how Christ entered the Holy Place once for all with His own blood, not that of animals, opposing the animal blood covenant in Exodus 24:8.
Hebrews 9:12: Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption [for us].
Contradiction with Matthew 26:28
This verse presents Jesus' blood as the new covenant for forgiveness, differing from the animal blood covenant mentioned in Exodus 24:8.
Matthew 26:28: For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
Contradiction with Jeremiah 31:31-32
These verses speak of a new covenant that is not like the old one made when leading people out of Egypt, suggesting a departure from the covenant practice stated in Exodus 24:8.
Jeremiah 31:31-32: Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
Contradiction with Isaiah 1:11
The verse indicates God’s lack of delight in the blood of animals, challenging the significance of the blood covenant described in Exodus 24:8.
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
Exodus 24:8 talks about Moses using blood to establish a covenant between God and the Israelites. A potential theological conflict could be that this practice might seem inconsistent with later teachings, especially in the New Testament, where Jesus establishes a new covenant through his sacrifice, emphasizing grace over ritual sacrifices. This change could be seen as a shift from the older covenant practices.
Paradox #2
Some historians and scholars point out potential conflicts between the ritual practices described in Exodus 24:8 and those of other ancient cultures in the same region. These discrepancies may include differences in the use of blood in covenant ceremonies or ritual practices between different groups. This can lead to debates about the origins and influences of these practices in ancient Israelite religion.
Paradox #3
The potential contradiction in Exodus 24:8 could be the idea of using blood as a way to make a promise. This might conflict with modern views that find the use of blood in rituals unsettling or unacceptable. Some people might also struggle with the idea of needing a blood sacrifice to have an agreement with God.