Contradiction with Romans 3:23
This verse states that all have sinned, which contradicts the idea that only certain individuals (like a ruler) need to bring a sin offering specific to their position.
Romans 3:23: For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
Contradiction with 1 John 1:8
This verse suggests that claiming to be without sin is self-deception, whereas Leviticus 4:22 outlines a provision specifically for a ruler who sins.
1 John 1:8: If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
Contradiction with Ecclesiastes 7:20
This verse states that there is not a just man on earth who does good and does not sin, which conflicts with the notion of singling out a ruler's sin as distinct.
Ecclesiastes 7:20: For [there is] not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not.
Contradiction with Hebrews 10:4
This verse says that it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins, contradicting the effectiveness of the sin offering described in Leviticus 4:22.
Hebrews 10:4: For [it is] not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.
Contradiction with Isaiah 64:6
This verse suggests that all righteous acts are like filthy rags, implying the futility of offerings as described in Leviticus 4:22 in terms of achieving righteousness.
Isaiah 64:6: But we are all as an unclean [thing], and all our righteousnesses [are] as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.
Paradox #1
The contradiction might arise from the notion of holding leaders accountable for unintended mistakes. While this promotes responsibility, it could conflict with the idea of forgiveness and understanding mistakes as part of being human. This tension between accountability and forgiveness might be seen as inconsistent.