Logical Contradiction in the Bible?

[POI]

Hebrews 9:22 (New Revised Standard Version)

22 Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.

Vs:

Leviticus 5:11-13 (New Revised Standard Version)

11 But if you cannot afford two turtle-doves or two pigeons, you shall bring as your offering for the sin that you have committed one-tenth of an ephah of choice flour for a sin-offering; you shall not put oil on it or lay frankincense on it, for it is a sin-offering. 12 You shall bring it to the priest, and the priest shall scoop up a handful of it as its memorial portion, and turn this into smoke on the altar, with the offerings by fire to the Lord; it is a sin-offering. 13 Thus the priest shall make atonement on your behalf for whichever of these sins you have committed, and you shall be forgiven. Like the grain-offering, the rest shall be for the priest.

***************************

In essence, Hebrews asserts there can be no forgiveness without the shedding of blood. However, in Leviticus, forgiveness is offered without the shedding of blood?

For debate: Is there a logical way to reconcile or harmonize these two passages with one another without turning into a pretzel?

Further, while they were alive, didn't both Jesus and John the Baptist offer forgiveness of sin as well, without the shedding of blood? Or how about in 2 Samuel 12, where David is forgiven without the shedding of blood?

[Capbook]

Yes, "almost everything" or 99% and 100% forgiveness required bloodshed, except the 1%.
Just like, American Airlines flight scheduled to London: everyday of the week except Monday.
That is what contained in the compound sentence of Hebrews 9:22.

Bloodshed involves the required act of blood spillage from an animal. While purification involves using blood for cleansing. In other words, in order for a sin to be forgiven, a living organism's skin would need to be pierced, to draw blood. Not only does Leviticus 5:11-13 bypasses this specific step, but also the expressed 'purification' step.

Above is a false analogy. Hebrews 9:22 means:

100% of sin requires bloodshed for forgiveness (and/also) 99% of everything requires purification.

Since Leviticus 5:11-13 expresses forgiveness of sin without bloodshed, the expressed 100% criteria, (with bloodshed), is not met. Hence, it is contradictory.

Thank you again.

My same argument to Athetotheist. As the LORD said "of every tree you may freely eat," that is 100% Adam and Eve can eat from every tree. Like 100% forgiveness require bloodshed.
But the next verse speaks of one or 1% is exempted from that command. Like 1% of "almost always" exempted from the 2nd clause command.
Do the LORD made a contradiction here in Genesis? Just like your assumption of Hebrews 9:22?

Gen 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
Gen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

[POI]

My same argument to Athetotheist. As the LORD said "of every tree you may freely eat," that is 100% Adam and Eve can eat from every tree. Like 100% forgiveness require bloodshed.
But the next verse speaks of one or 1% is exempted from that command. Like 1% of "almost always" exempted from the 2nd clause command.
Do the LORD made a contradiction here in Genesis? Just like your assumption of Hebrews 9:22?

Gen 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
Gen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Well, this is just another really bad apologetic argument. Your provided example is another false analogy. No one disputes the aforementioned storyline, where "Adam and Eve" were instructed not to eat from the forbidden tree. I highlighted the word above, which demonstrates this as being a false analogy.

Alternatively, Hebrews 9:22 expresses NO forgiveness of sin without bloodshed. No 'but' or 'except' is offered in the given compound sentence. Again, nice try.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Capbook in post #180]

POI got here a little ahead of me.

And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
But [except this] of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and [along with this] without shedding of blood is no remission.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #170]

If I understand correctly, you're saying that the only bloodshed required for remission was the blood sprinkled on the tabernacle and the altar when they were first dedicated. If that's the case, why did the law further require everyone who could afford an animal sacrifice to bring one for the remission of unintentiomal sins (Leviticus 4)?

Since that is the case, then it certainly explains why the poor could offer grain. Therefore, the new shed blood certainly wasn't for remission, which was by the first shed blood of the Testament for remission itself.

"If the whole Israelite community sins unintentionally and does what is forbidden in any of the Lord’s commands, even though the community is unaware of the matter, when they realize their guilt and the sin they committed becomes known, the assembly must bring a young bull as a sin offering and present it before the tent of meeting. The elders of the community are to lay their hands on the bull’s head before the Lord, and the bull shall be slaughtered before the Lord. Then the anointed priest is to take some of the bull’s blood into the tent of meeting. He shall dip his finger into the blood and sprinkle it before the Lord seven times in front of the curtain. He is to put some of the blood on the horns of the altar that is before the Lord in the tent of meeting. The rest of the blood he shall pour out at the base of the altar of burnt offering at the entrance to the tent of meeting. He shall remove all the fat from it and burn it on the altar, and do with this bull just as he did with the bull for the sin offering. In this way the priest will make atonement for the community, and they will be forgiven."
(Leviticus 4:13-20)

So it was for remission.

So, it being the first and yearly blood shed for remission. In this case, the law commanded a bull to be brought to the tabernacle, and his blood shed and sprinkled accordingly, so that the blood of the purged altar remits sin. In another case, grain is commanded to be placed upon the altar, so that the same blood of purification remits sin.

Heb 9 confirms that it's the blood shed for purification of the tabernacle and instruments of service, that remits sin. Not any other blood shed by anyone, anywhere, nor any purpose.

Almost all things of the tabernacle service are purged by blood, and without that shed blood, there is no remission. No other blood nor grain offering could remit sin, without that blood shed first to sanctify the altar, and make it most holy for service of remission.

The faith and trust for remission is in that blood shed alone, not in any other blood or grain offered by law. So with the one blood of Jesus Christ for remission, not in any other blood of sacrifice, even including our own...

The blood of bulls and goats sprinkled upon the Testament tabernacle and altar, could remit sin yearly, but could not purge the conscience of guilt. Only the blood of the risen Lamb of God sprinkled upon the soul, can purify the heart and conscience from all past sinning, as well as deliver the saint from the power of sin, which is lust of the world

Once sin was forgiven through blood, grain or repentance, why would the conscience feel any more guilt?

Heb 9:12 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

Because the blood of animals could only be sprinkled upon the flesh, not the soul. It could purify the life from past sins, but not the conscience from past sinning.

The sprinkled blood of the risen Lamb of God is upon the soul, not the flesh. Earthly water can cleanse the body, but only the living water can purify the heart:

Jhn 3:5
Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Eph 5:25
Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

Heb 10:22
Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.

As for the blood of Jesus sprinkled on the soul, that's a questionable Christian claim.

Not with the Bible. The pattern of atonement is first shed, and then sprinkling the blood, not just shedding alone. Even as the passover lamb was first shed, and then struck upon the doorposts, not just shed alone.

Jesus' natural blood was shed, but was not sprinkled at the cross, therefore the atonement was not made for the sins of the people. No one on earth was atoned for by killing the innocent Son of God.

Act 2:36
Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ. Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

1Pe 1:2
Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.


This sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ is present and future tense by the Spirit, not only once in the past at the cross, which was not sprinkled at all by the high priest. Since His blood was not sprinkled at the cross, then only by His resurrection from the dead, can the Lamb of God now sprinkle His own blood, which is by the eternal Spirit upon the soul, not upon the body.

Jhn 6:54
Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed...He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.

Jhn 6:63
It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.


We see here, that Jesus is not speaking of His natural flesh and blood, but of His spiritual blood, which is only by resurrection from the dead. Many disciples turned back from Jesus, because they carnally believed He spoke of His natural flesh and blood. Which of course was forbidden by law:

Lev 17:14For it is the life of all flesh; the blood of it is for the life thereof: therefore I said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh: for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof: whosoever eateth it shall be cut off.

Frankly, from John 6, I'm surprised no one has tried to argue, that Jesus was cannibalistic.

And didn't you say earlier that anyone who purports to be beyond the power of sin in this life is deluding himself?

Yes. Beyond the power to receive lust once again, after having been purged from it by the Spirit's sprinkling of blood. Keeping ourselves free from lust through all trials, is not being beyond any trial to return to old lust again. Only in the next life with resurrected immortal body like that of Jesus Christ, is there no more trial to abstain from lust and evil.

The good man goes through trials in this life to strengthen the character. The thief goes through temptations to steal, and not get caught...

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #173]

How would that help, if everyone who got to heaven would already have their sins forgiven?

Not everyone. Only the Testament people of law. Nor were they in heaven from the grave, but waiting in paradise of hell, for their Messiah to come to them Personally.

The first Testament, law, and tabernacle of service was done away at the cross. Therefore, no remission of sins by the yearly blood shed therein.

With the death of the Testator, His covenant with the His people ended.

Again, unsubstantiated claims.

Oh, you also want Scripture with the Bible teaching you're asking for?

Jhn 9:27
He answered them, I have told you already, and ye did not hear: wherefore would ye hear it again? will ye also be his disciples?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #184]

So, it being the first and yearly blood shed for remission.

This blood isn't shed "first and yearly". This blood is shed "if the whole Israelite community sins unintentionally and does what is forbidden in any of the Lord’s commands, even though the community is unaware of the matter, when they realize their guilt and the sin they committed becomes known".

Heb 9 confirms that it's the blood shed for purification of the tabernacle and instruments of service, that remits sin. Not any other blood shed by anyone, anywhere, nor any purpose.

That lets out Jesus.

The faith and trust for remission is in that blood shed alone, not in any other blood or grain offered by law. So with the one blood of Jesus Christ for remission, not in any other blood of sacrifice, even including our own...

.....until animal sacrifices are reinstituted in the messianic age (Ezekiel 45).


Once sin was forgiven through blood, grain or repentance, why would the conscience feel any more guilt?

Heb 9:12 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

Because the blood of animals could only be sprinkled upon the flesh, not the soul. It could purify the life from past sins, but not the conscience from past sinning.

The text you cite tells of purging the conscience from "dead works". It says nothing about "past sinning". Just because it has the word "purge" in it doesn't mean that it bolsters your position.


As for the blood of Jesus sprinkled on the soul, that's a questionable Christian claim.

Not with the Bible. The pattern of atonement is first shed, and then sprinkling the blood, not just shedding alone. Even as the passover lamb was first shed, and then struck upon the doorposts, not just shed alone.

It's making Jesus out to be the passover lamb that's questionable.

For one thing, Jesus was supposed to shed his blood for the remission of sin, but that isn't what the blood of the passover lamb was used for. It was used to commemorate delivery from bondage in Egypt, not to atone for sin. Christian apologists might try to stretch it out to mean delivery from "bondage to sin", but it doesn't work. The passover lamb was not a sin offering.

Jesus' natural blood was shed, but was not sprinkled at the cross, therefore the atonement was not made for the sins of the people. No one on earth was atoned for by killing the innocent Son of God.

That seems to make a falsehood of Jesus' declaration, "It is finished!"

We see here, that Jesus is not speaking of His natural flesh and blood, but of His spiritual blood, which is only by resurrection from the dead. Many disciples turned back from Jesus, because they carnally believed He spoke of His natural flesh and blood. Which of course was forbidden by law

If you want to invoke law, there are numerous problems with law here.
https://www.jewsforjudaism.org/knowledg ... sover-lamb

[Capbook]

[Replying to Capbook in post #180]

POI got here a little ahead of me.

And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
But [except this] of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and [along with this] without shedding of blood is no remission.

Yes, a compound sentence combines two or more independent clauses that express related but separate ideas. These clauses are joined using a coordinating conjunction (like "and," "but," or "or"). Though conjunction "and" is used in Hebrews 9:22, is "almost everything" or 99% the same with "100%"?

[Capbook]

My same argument to Athetotheist. As the LORD said "of every tree you may freely eat," that is 100% Adam and Eve can eat from every tree. Like 100% forgiveness require bloodshed.
But the next verse speaks of one or 1% is exempted from that command. Like 1% of "almost always" exempted from the 2nd clause command.
Do the LORD made a contradiction here in Genesis? Just like your assumption of Hebrews 9:22?

Gen 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
Gen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Well, this is just another really bad apologetic argument. Your provided example is another false analogy. No one disputes the aforementioned storyline, where "Adam and Eve" were instructed not to eat from the forbidden tree. I highlighted the word above, which demonstrates this as being a false analogy.

Alternatively, Hebrews 9:22 expresses NO forgiveness of sin without bloodshed. No 'but' or 'except' is offered in the given compound sentence. Again, nice try.

Yes, my same response to Athetotheist, a compound sentence combines two or more independent clauses that express related but separate ideas. These clauses are joined using a coordinating conjunction (like "and," "but," or "or"). Though conjunction "and" is used in Hebrews 9:22, is "almost everything" or 99% the same with "100%"?

[POI]

My same argument to Athetotheist. As the LORD said "of every tree you may freely eat," that is 100% Adam and Eve can eat from every tree. Like 100% forgiveness require bloodshed.
But the next verse speaks of one or 1% is exempted from that command. Like 1% of "almost always" exempted from the 2nd clause command.
Do the LORD made a contradiction here in Genesis? Just like your assumption of Hebrews 9:22?

Gen 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
Gen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Well, this is just another really bad apologetic argument. Your provided example is another false analogy. No one disputes the aforementioned storyline, where "Adam and Eve" were instructed not to eat from the forbidden tree. I highlighted the word above, which demonstrates this as being a false analogy.

Alternatively, Hebrews 9:22 expresses NO forgiveness of sin without bloodshed. No 'but' or 'except' is offered in the given compound sentence. Again, nice try.

Yes, my same response to Athetotheist, a compound sentence combines two or more independent clauses that express related but separate ideas. These clauses are joined using a coordinating conjunction (like "and," "but," or "or"). Though conjunction "and" is used in Hebrews 9:22, is "almost everything" or 99% the same with "100%"?

You did not respond to what I stated. Hebrews 9:22 does not offer a (but or an exception). Hence, your given example is irrelevant. Sorry. Please try, yet again, or finally concede the obvious contradiction. Even though I know you can never do that

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Capbook in post #187]

Yes, a compound sentence combines two or more independent clauses that express related but separate ideas. These clauses are joined using a coordinating conjunction (like "and," "but," or "or"). Though conjunction "and" is used in Hebrews 9:22, is "almost everything" or 99% the same with "100%"?

Hebrews 9:22 clause 2 says "no remission without blood". That leaves no room for any "almost".