Contradiction with Leviticus 17:11
This verse states that it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul, contradicting the claim that the blood of bulls and goats cannot take away sins.
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 Exodus 29:36
This verse mentions a sin offering with a bullock, suggesting it has a role in atonement, contradicting Hebrews 10:4.
Exodus 29:36: And thou shalt offer every day a bullock [for] a sin offering for atonement: and thou shalt cleanse the altar, when thou hast made an atonement for it, and thou shalt anoint it, to sanctify it.
Contradiction with Numbers 15:25
This verse speaks about making atonement for the congregation with a bullock, implying its effectiveness, contrary to Hebrews 10:4.
Numbers 15:25: And the priest shall make an atonement for all the congregation of the children of Israel, and it shall be forgiven them; for it [is] ignorance: and they shall bring their offering, a sacrifice made by fire unto the LORD, and their sin offering before the LORD, for their ignorance:
Contradiction with Leviticus 16:15-16
The blood of the goat is used for atonement for the people of Israel, seemingly contradicting Hebrews 10:4 by suggesting it can remove sin.
Leviticus 16:15-16: Then shall he kill the goat of the sin offering, that [is] for the people, and bring his blood within the vail, and do with that blood as he did with the blood of the bullock, and sprinkle it upon the mercy seat, and before the mercy seat:
Paradox #1
Hebrews 10:4 points out that animal sacrifices can't truly take away sins. Some might see a conflict with parts of the Old Testament, which describe sacrifices as a crucial part of atoning for sins. This creates a tension between Old Testament practices and New Testament teachings about the finality and superiority of Jesus's sacrifice.
Paradox #2
Hebrews 10:4 states that it is impossible for the blood of animals to take away sins. A doctrinal conflict may arise for those who reference the Old Testament sacrifices that were commanded for atonement of sins. This might seem inconsistent with the New Testament's assertion that these sacrifices are inadequate for true forgiveness, which could be confusing for readers trying to understand how Old Testament practices relate to New Testament teachings about sin and forgiveness.
Paradox #3
The contradiction or inconsistency associated with that verse could revolve around the idea of animal sacrifices. According to some interpretations, the verse suggests that animal sacrifices are not effective for achieving forgiveness, which might seem inconsistent with earlier parts of the Bible where such sacrifices are described as important religious practices for atonement. This can create a tension between Old Testament practices and New Testament teachings.
Paradox #4
The idea in the verse suggests that animal sacrifices can't completely remove sin. From a scientific perspective, this can be seen as inconsistent with the principles of cause and effect because moral or spiritual states (like sin) cannot be measured, quantified, or affected by physical actions like sacrifices. This concept challenges the scientific method, which relies on observable and measurable phenomena.
Paradox #5
The contradiction or conflict might be found in the idea that animal sacrifices were practiced for forgiveness of sins in the Old Testament, but this verse suggests they were never effective. This could raise questions about why such practices were commanded if they weren't believed to truly address sin.