Contradiction with Isaiah 1:11
This verse suggests that God takes no pleasure in sacrifices, which contradicts the atonement process described in Leviticus 16:16.
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 Psalm 51:16-17
These verses emphasize a broken spirit over sacrifices for atonement, which contrasts with the ritualistic atonement in Leviticus 16:16.
Psalm 51:16-17: 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
This verse values mercy over sacrifice, challenging the sacrificial atonement method described in Leviticus 16:16.
Hosea 6:6: For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.
Paradox #1
Leviticus 16:16 deals with the ritual cleansing of the sanctuary from impurities and sins. A possible theological conflict arises with the New Testament teachings about Jesus' sacrifice. In Christianity, Jesus is considered the ultimate, once-for-all sacrifice for sins, which can seem inconsistent with the repeated, specific rituals described in Leviticus for atonement and cleansing.
Paradox #2
Leviticus 16:16 discusses atonement for the sins and impurities of the people, which is a common theme in religious texts. A potential contradiction could arise if one believes that individuals should be held solely responsible for their own actions, rather than having their sins collectively atoned for by another. This could conflict with modern views of personal accountability and justice.