Contradiction with Psalm 51:16
This verse claims God does not delight in burnt offerings, which contradicts the requirement of burning the flesh of the bullock as a sin offering in Exodus 29:14.
Psalm 51:16: For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give [it]: thou delightest not in burnt offering. [else...: or, that I should]
Contradiction with Hosea 6:6
It emphasizes that God desires mercy, not sacrifice, opposing the necessity of burning a sin offering in Exodus 29:14.
Hosea 6:6: For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.
Contradiction with Matthew 9:13
Reinforces the idea that God desires mercy over sacrifice, contradicting the sacrificial instructions in Exodus 29:14.
Matthew 9:13: But go ye and learn what [that] meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
Contradiction with Isaiah 1:11
Declares that God is not pleased with burnt offerings of rams and the fat of fed beasts, conflicting with the sacrificial ritual outlined in Exodus 29:14.
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]
Contradiction with Proverbs 21:3
States that doing righteousness and justice is more acceptable to the Lord than sacrifice, which contradicts the sacrificial practice required in Exodus 29:14.
Proverbs 21:3: To do justice and judgment [is] more acceptable to the LORD than sacrifice.
Paradox #1
Exodus 29:14 involves specific instructions for a ritual. Historically, some scholars point out contradictions between ritual practices described in different parts of the Bible, such as differing details about sacrifices or ceremonies in other books or sections. Additionally, some might see inconsistencies with archaeological findings or historical records about ancient rituals, questioning whether such practices were actually done as described. Understanding these differences can depend on interpretations and assumptions about historical context.
Paradox #2
Exodus 29:14 involves the burning of a bull's flesh, hide, and offal as a sacrifice. The contradiction here could be seen in the context of animal rights and the ethical treatment of animals, where modern perspectives may find it inconsistent with the idea of being compassionate and caring towards all living creatures. In ancient times, such practices were seen as acts of devotion, while today, they might be considered cruel or unnecessary.