Contradiction with Hebrews 10:4
This verse states that the blood of bulls and goats cannot take away sins, while Leviticus 17:11 emphasizes blood as atonement for the soul.
Hebrews 10:4: For [it is] not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.
Contradiction with Jeremiah 7:22-23
God claims He did not command sacrifices on the day He brought Israel out of Egypt, contrasting with the Levitical focus on sacrifices for atonement.
Jeremiah 7:22-23: For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices: [concerning: Heb. concerning the matter of]
Contradiction with Psalm 40:6
Highlights God's lack of desire for sacrifice and offering, which contradicts the emphasis on blood sacrifices in Leviticus 17:11.
Psalm 40:6: Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened: burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required. [opened: Heb. digged]
Contradiction with Hosea 6:6
God desires mercy, not sacrifice, challenging the necessity of blood for atonement asserted in Leviticus 17:11.
Hosea 6:6: For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.
Contradiction with Isaiah 1:11
Expresses God's disinterest in the multitude of sacrifices, questioning the Levitical principle of atonement through blood.
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 Micah 6:6-8
Critiques reliance on sacrifices and emphasizes justice and humility, contradicting the Levitical sacrificial system's focus.
Micah 6:6-8: Wherewith shall I come before the LORD, [and] bow myself before the high God? shall I come before him with burnt offerings, with calves of a year old? [of a...: Heb. sons of a year?]
Paradox #1
Leviticus 17:11 talks about the significance of blood in making atonement. A possible theological conflict might arise when compared to New Testament teachings that emphasize faith and the sacrifice of Jesus for forgiveness of sins, rather than animal sacrifices and the use of blood. This could create a tension between the Old Testament practices and the New Testament emphasis on Jesus' sacrifice.
Paradox #2
The verse in question is often understood as emphasizing the importance of blood in making atonement for sins. Some potential contradictions or inconsistencies might arise when comparing this Old Testament perspective with New Testament teachings. In the New Testament, particularly in the Book of Hebrews, it is suggested that Jesus' sacrifice on the cross fulfills and surpasses the old sacrificial system. This could be seen as a shift in the concept of atonement from the importance of repeated blood sacrifices to a singular, once-for-all sacrifice by Jesus. Thus, the contradiction might be in how the necessity and meaning of blood for atonement are understood differently between these testaments.
Paradox #3
The potential contradiction in this verse is the idea that life is in the blood. Scientifically, while blood is crucial for transporting nutrients and oxygen, life involves complex systems, including the brain, organs, and cellular processes. Life is not solely contained in the blood.
Paradox #4
The contradiction or inconsistency could come from the idea that while the verse emphasizes the importance and sacredness of blood as essential for atonement, other parts of religious and moral teachings emphasize the sanctity of life, which could create a conflict in interpretations about the use of blood in rituals or sacrifices. Some people may see these practices as inconsistent with valuing life.