Contradiction with Leviticus 10:12-13
Aaron and his sons are instructed to eat the offerings in the holy place, implying consumption of offerings is permissible, which contradicts Exodus 29:34 prohibiting leftover consumption.
Leviticus 10:12-13: And Moses spake unto Aaron, and unto Eleazar and unto Ithamar, his sons that were left, Take the meat offering that remaineth of the offerings of the LORD made by fire, and eat it without leaven beside the altar: for it [is] most holy:
Contradiction with Leviticus 6:16
The priests are allowed to eat the remaining part of the offerings, which contrasts with Exodus 29:34 stating that leftovers must be burned.
Leviticus 6:16: And the remainder thereof shall Aaron and his sons eat: with unleavened bread shall it be eaten in the holy place; in the court of the tabernacle of the congregation they shall eat it.
Contradiction with Deuteronomy 12:7
People are encouraged to eat their offerings and rejoice before God, differing from the restriction in Exodus 29:34.
Deuteronomy 12:7: And there ye shall eat before the LORD your God, and ye shall rejoice in all that ye put your hand unto, ye and your households, wherein the LORD thy God hath blessed thee.
Contradiction with 1 Samuel 2:15-16
The sons of Eli take raw meat from sacrifices for roasting, suggesting irregular consumption of offerings, in contrast with Exodus 29:34's directive to burn leftovers.
1 Samuel 2:15-16: Also before they burnt the fat, the priest's servant came, and said to the man that sacrificed, Give flesh to roast for the priest; for he will not have sodden flesh of thee, but raw.
Paradox #1
The contradiction could be related to differing interpretations of ritualistic laws versus moral laws. Some people might see the detailed sacrificial instructions as inconsistent with the overall message of mercy and love in the Bible, leading to questions about the balance between strict ritual adherence and broader ethical teachings.
Paradox #2
The potential contradiction in Exodus 29:34 could relate to the waste of food, as it instructs that leftover sacrificial meat must be burned rather than consumed or shared with those in need, which might seem inconsistent with values of resource conservation or charity.