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?

[Kylie]

Now we are just going in circles here. Hebrews states "without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins." The verse in Leviticus represents an exception, as their is no bloodshed for forgiveness. The passage in Leviticus is "under the law", as the first 5 books are God's law, which was passed down to Moses. Hebrews is clearly wrong, as this passage states their is NO forgiveness WITHOUT BLOODSHED. This is obviously a clear contradiction. You have to either 1) completely ignore one of these two passages to retain your belief or 2) spin one of them to retain your belief. You opted for option 2).

That is your interpretation. I think it is wrong.

Do you have anything to back up your opinion?

Because if it's your word against what the text actually says, then the text is likely to win.

[POI]

Then what the 1% (remains of 99%) to be cleansed or to be purified needs?

Bloodshed. This is why Leviticus 5:11-13 contradicts.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Capbook in post #200]

We've longed agreed that Hebrews 9:22 is a compound sentence.
Again, is 99% the same with 100%?
I doubt this question will not be addressed.

Why do you keep trying to deny that 0% without blood means 0% without blood? Will that question ever be addressed?

[1213]

Now we are just going in circles here. Hebrews states "without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins." The verse in Leviticus represents an exception, as their is no bloodshed for forgiveness. The passage in Leviticus is "under the law", as the first 5 books are God's law, which was passed down to Moses. Hebrews is clearly wrong, as this passage states their is NO forgiveness WITHOUT BLOODSHED. This is obviously a clear contradiction. You have to either 1) completely ignore one of these two passages to retain your belief or 2) spin one of them to retain your belief. You opted for option 2).

That is your interpretation. I think it is wrong.

Do you have anything to back up your opinion?

Because if it's your word against what the text actually says, then the text is likely to win.

No, it is my word against the word of POI. To me POI is no authority, and he is not the Bible.

The text says: "under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins".

Not everything is under the law. And there is no Biblical reason to think everything in Old Testament is under the law. If you disagree, please show a scripture that supports your opinion.

[Capbook]

Then what the 1% (remains of 99%) to be cleansed or to be purified needs?

Bloodshed. This is why Leviticus 5:11-13 contradicts.

The 99% needs bloodshed.
And again, the 1% needs what?

[Capbook]

[Replying to Capbook in post #200]

We've longed agreed that Hebrews 9:22 is a compound sentence.
Again, is 99% the same with 100%?
I doubt this question will not be addressed.

Why do you keep trying to deny that 0% without blood means 0% without blood? Will that question ever be addressed?

Am I right that my question will not be addressed?
Because you also deny the 1%.
Now, the 99% needs bloodshed.
What the 1% needs to be cleansed or purified?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Capbook in post #206]

Am I right that my question will not be addressed?
Because you also deny the 1%.

Am I right that my question will not be addressed?

The 0% without blood in clause 2 denies the 1%.

[POI]

Then what the 1% (remains of 99%) to be cleansed or to be purified needs?

Bloodshed. This is why Leviticus 5:11-13 contradicts.

The 99% needs bloodshed.
And again, the 1% needs what?

100% needs bloodshed.

Without a (but, except, or unless) clause offered in Hebrews 9:22, a contradiction is presented in Leviticus 5:11-13. Please cope accordingly.

[Capbook]

Then what the 1% (remains of 99%) to be cleansed or to be purified needs?

Bloodshed. This is why Leviticus 5:11-13 contradicts.

The 99% needs bloodshed.
And again, the 1% needs what?

100% needs bloodshed.

Without a (but, except, or unless) clause offered in Hebrews 9:22, a contradiction is presented in Leviticus 5:11-13. Please cope accordingly.

You always refer to the second clause, we've longed agreed Hebrews 9:22 is a compound sentence.
If the first clause 99% needs bloodshed.
The 1% should be totally out of it or not?

[Capbook]

[Replying to Capbook in post #206]

Am I right that my question will not be addressed?
Because you also deny the 1%.

Am I right that my question will not be addressed?

The 0% without blood in clause 2 denies the 1%.

What's in the 1% that is being denied?