Contradiction with Matthew 19:14
This verse suggests the importance and inherent value of children, contradicting the specific valuation outlined in Leviticus 27:6.
Matthew 19:14: But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.
Contradiction with Galatians 3:28
This verse promotes the equality of all individuals in Christ, which contrasts with the differentiated valuations based on age and gender in Leviticus 27:6.
Galatians 3:28: There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
Contradiction with James 2:1-4
These verses challenge the practice of showing favoritism, which is in tension with the assigning of different monetary values to individuals in Leviticus 27:6.
James 2:1-4: My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, [the Lord] of glory, with respect of persons.
Contradiction with 1 Samuel 16:7
This verse emphasizes God's focus on the heart rather than outward appearances or attributes, contradicting the monetary valuation of people in Leviticus 27:6.
1 Samuel 16:7: But the LORD said unto Samuel, Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have refused him: for [the LORD seeth] not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart. [outward...: Heb. eyes]
Paradox #1
The verse in question assigns a monetary value to the lives of children for religious purposes, which can conflict with the broader biblical principle of the inherent worth and dignity of all human life. This could appear inconsistent with other teachings emphasizing equality and the sanctity of life, like the intrinsic value of each person irrespective of age or gender.
Paradox #2
Leviticus 27:6 assigns different monetary values to people based on their age and gender. A contradiction or inconsistency could arise if these valuations don't align with similar assessments elsewhere in the text or if the social or moral implications of such valuations seem inconsistent with other teachings. Overall, these valuations can reflect cultural norms and practices that might not align with modern perspectives.