Contradiction with Deuteronomy 12:17
This verse states that you may not eat within your towns the tithe of your grain, wine, and oil, or the firstborn of your herd or flock, implying offerings or portions set aside for priests should not be consumed by others, contradicting the allocation of specific portions to priests as in Leviticus 7:34.
Deuteronomy 12:17: Thou mayest not eat within thy gates the tithe of thy corn, or of thy wine, or of thy oil, or the firstlings of thy herds or of thy flock, nor any of thy vows which thou vowest, nor thy freewill offerings, or heave offering of thine hand:
Contradiction with 1 Samuel 2:13-14
These verses illustrate priests taking meat by force from sacrifices, showing a disregard for the specific portions allocated to them, contrary to the orderly designation found in Leviticus 7:34.
1 Samuel 2:13-14: And the priests' custom with the people [was, that], when any man offered sacrifice, the priest's servant came, while the flesh was in seething, with a fleshhook of three teeth in his hand;
Contradiction with Matthew 12:1-4
Jesus tells of David eating the consecrated bread, which was not lawful for him, indicating a situation where sacred portions allocated to priests were consumed by others, conflicting with the exclusive allocation mentioned in Leviticus 7:34.
Matthew 12:1-4: At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were an hungred, and began to pluck the ears of corn, and to eat.
Contradiction with Hebrews 7:12
This verse speaks of a change in the priesthood, suggesting a shift from traditional Levitical priestly practices, such as those detailed in Leviticus 7:34, towards a new order which may not adhere to the same rituals and allocations.
Hebrews 7:12: For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.
Paradox #1
Leviticus 7:34 discusses the allocation of specific offerings to priests. A potential contradiction might arise when comparing this with other scripture passages emphasizing all offerings are for God alone. This could cause confusion about whether offerings are intended solely for divine purposes or for sustaining religious leaders as well.
Paradox #2
The verse mentions specific portions of sacrifices being given to the priests as their share, which might conflict with other religious or historical texts that describe different practices or allocations of sacrificial offerings in ancient times. This could lead to inconsistencies in understanding how sacrificial rituals were carried out or how religious duties and benefits were distributed among priestly figures across different periods and communities.