Contradiction with Hebrews 10:10
Hebrews 10:10 says that Jesus' sacrifice is once and for all, suggesting that regular animal sacrifices like in Leviticus 17:6 are no longer necessary.
Hebrews 10:10: By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once [for all].
Contradiction with Hebrews 9:12
Hebrews 9:12 indicates that Christ obtained eternal redemption through His own blood, contrasting the repeated animal sacrifices described in Leviticus 17:6.
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 Psalm 51:16
Psalm 51:16 suggests that God does not delight in sacrifices, contrasting with the practice of offering sacrifices mentioned in Leviticus 17:6.
Psalm 51:16: 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
Hosea 6:6 emphasizes desiring mercy and knowledge of God over burnt offerings, which opposes the sacrificial practices in Leviticus 17:6.
Hosea 6:6: For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.
Paradox #1
Leviticus 17:6 involves the ritual of offering sacrifices. A potential theological conflict could arise when comparing this practice to the teachings of the New Testament, particularly in the letter to the Hebrews, which emphasizes that the sacrifice of Jesus eliminates the need for further animal sacrifices. This could seem inconsistent with the Old Testament's detailed instructions for ritual sacrifices.
Paradox #2
Leviticus 17:6 discusses offering sacrifices and instructions related to them. The contradiction or inconsistency could arise from how these practices later changed. For example, after the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE, traditional animal sacrifices in Judaism largely ceased, leading to a shift towards prayer and other forms of worship, which contrasts with earlier practices described in the Hebrew Bible. This can seem inconsistent with earlier instructions that were specific to temple rituals.
Paradox #3
The scientific conflict could involve the act of burning animal fat as a pleasing aroma to God. From a scientific standpoint, the idea that burning animal fat produces a smell pleasing to a deity doesn't have a basis, as it's a cultural or religious belief rather than a scientific fact. Science would focus on the chemical reactions involved in burning, such as the production of smoke and aroma compounds, without attributing them to divine preferences.
Paradox #4
Leviticus 17:6 involves offering sacrifices to God, which may conflict with the moral view that compassion and non-violence towards animals are important. Some people today see the ritual of animal sacrifice as inconsistent with modern ideas of kindness and empathy.