Contradiction with Isaiah 1:18
Leviticus 16:22 talks about atonement through a scapegoat bearing sins symbolically, whereas Isaiah 1:18 emphasizes direct forgiveness and purification by God.
Isaiah 1:18: Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.
Contradiction with Psalm 51:16-17
Leviticus 16:22 involves a ritual of scapegoat for atonement, but Psalm 51:16-17 suggests God values a contrite heart over ritual sacrifices for forgiveness.
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 Hebrews 10:4
Leviticus 16:22 involves an animal as a means for carrying away sins, whereas Hebrews 10:4 claims it's impossible for the blood of animals to take away sins.
Hebrews 10:4: For [it is] not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.
Contradiction with Hosea 6:6
Leviticus 16:22 focuses on a ritualistic atonement practice, while Hosea 6:6 emphasizes that God desires mercy and knowledge of God, over sacrifice.
Hosea 6:6: For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.
Contradiction with Hebrews 9:12
Leviticus 16:22 describes a temporary atonement process with a goat, contrasting with Hebrews 9:12 which speaks of eternal redemption through Christ's own blood.
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 Colossians 2:14
Leviticus 16:22 ceremonially removes sin with a scapegoat, while Colossians 2:14 describes Christ blotting out sin permanently through the cross.
Colossians 2:14: Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;
Contradiction with Matthew 9:13
Leviticus 16:22 involves a complex ritual, whereas Matthew 9:13 highlights Jesus advocating for mercy over ritual sacrifice.
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.
Paradox #1
Leviticus 16:22 describes a ritual involving sending a goat into the wilderness to carry away the sins of the people. Some argue there could be a theological conflict because this act seems to transfer sin to an animal, which may not align with the later Christian belief that only Jesus can take away sins. This could seem inconsistent with the idea that God's forgiveness comes through sincere repentance and not just ritual acts.
Paradox #2
Leviticus 16:22 describes the practice of sending a scapegoat into the wilderness to atone for the sins of the people. A potential contradiction or inconsistency is that there is little archaeological or historical evidence outside the Bible to support the occurrence of this specific ritual as it is described, raising questions about whether it was an actual practice or symbolic instruction. Additionally, this ritual is unique to the Hebrew tradition and is not clearly found in other ancient cultures, which might suggest a different or evolving understanding of sin and atonement.
Paradox #3
The contradiction or conflict in that verse could arise from the idea of placing sins onto an innocent animal and then sending it away. This raises questions about fairness and the ethics of transferring guilt from people to an animal that has no part in those sins. Some might see this as unjust or an avoidance of personal responsibility.