Contradiction with Hebrews 10:4
This verse states that it is not possible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins, contradicting the implication in Leviticus 4:3 that a sin offering by a young bull can atone for sin.
Hebrews 10:4: For [it is] not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.
Contradiction with Isaiah 1:11
Here, God expresses a lack of pleasure in the multitude of sacrifices, which contradicts Leviticus 4:3 where sacrifices are prescribed for atonement.
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 Psalm 40:6
This verse mentions that God has no desire for sacrifice and offering, contradicting the necessity of a sin offering as described in Leviticus 4:3.
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 Micah 6:6-7
These verses question the efficacy of offering sacrifices, including calves, for forgiveness, which contrasts with the atonement process outlined in Leviticus 4:3.
Micah 6:6-7: 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?]
Contradiction with Hosea 6:6
This verse emphasizes God’s desire for mercy, not sacrifice, challenging the focus on offering animals as described in Leviticus 4:3.
Hosea 6:6: For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.
Paradox #1
Leviticus 4:3 talks about a sin offering for a priest who sins unintentionally. A potential theological conflict could arise with the idea of priestly infallibility, as some might expect spiritual leaders to be free from sin. This verse implies that even religious leaders are capable of sin, highlighting their humanity and need for atonement, which might seem inconsistent with views that see priests as morally superior or infallible.
Paradox #2
The contradiction or inconsistency in Leviticus 4:3 could be seen in the idea that even people in religious authority, like priests, who are supposed to be moral leaders, can commit unintentional sins and need to make sacrifices for atonement. This raises questions about the infallibility of religious leaders and the fairness of punishing unintentional actions.