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?

[1213]

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?

Hebrews says: "under the law...". That does not mean sins could not be forgiven some other way, only that under the law situation is what it is. And this leads to question: were sins forgiven without blood under the law? Paul seems to think that sins were not forgiven under the law without blood. And I believe it could have been the case at his time. It does not mean God demands it, or that forgiveness is not possible without blood.

[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?

Hebrews says: "under the law...". That does not mean sins could not be forgiven some other way, only that under the law situation is what it is. And this leads to question: were sins forgiven without blood under the law? Paul seems to think that sins were not forgiven under the law without blood. And I believe it could have been the case at his time. It does not mean God demands it, or that forgiveness is not possible without blood.

Hebrews 9:22 is crystal clear. No sin is to be forgiven without the shedding of blood. This means there is no exception(s).

[1213]

Hebrews 9:22 is crystal clear. No sin is to be forgiven without the shedding of blood.

Yes, under the law. But not everything is under the law.

[POI]

Hebrews 9:22 is crystal clear. No sin is to be forgiven without the shedding of blood.

Yes, under the law. But not everything is under the law.

Then Hebrews 9:22 is wrong. Why is Leviticus 5:11-13 not 'under the law'? Further, in 2 Samuel 12, was David 'under the law'?

[1213]

Hebrews 9:22 is crystal clear. No sin is to be forgiven without the shedding of blood.

Yes, under the law. But not everything is under the law.

Then Hebrews 9:22 is wrong.

Sorry, I don't understand how it is wrong. It does not say everything is under the law, which is true. And I think it can be true that at that point under the law situation was what is said in the text.

Why is Leviticus 5:11-13 not 'under the law'?

It speaks about sin offering. And I think it is one example of why people thought forgiveness requires blood according to the law.

And if his hand cannot reach to two turtledoves, or two offspring of a dove, then he who sinned shall bring his offering, a tenth of an ephah of fine flour for a sin offering; he shall not put oil on it, nor put frankincense on it; for it is a sin offering. And he shall bring it to the priest, and the priest shall take from it his full handful, the memorial offering, and shall burn it as incense on the altar, on the fire offering of Jehovah; it is a sin offering. And the priest shall atone for him, for his sin which he sinned from one of these; and it shall be forgiven him. And it shall be for the priest as a food offering.
Leviticus 5:11-13

Further, in 2 Samuel 12, was David 'under the law'?

Does the scripture tell that he was?

[POI]

Sorry, I don't understand how it is wrong. It does not say everything is under the law, which is true. And I think it can be true that at that point under the law situation was what is said in the text.

You are committing the (exact word fallacy) yet again. The verse is clear. There are no exceptions. This is a contradiction.

It speaks about sin offering. And I think it is one example of why people thought forgiveness requires blood according to the law.

And if his hand cannot reach to two turtledoves, or two offspring of a dove, then he who sinned shall bring his offering, a tenth of an ephah of fine flour for a sin offering; he shall not put oil on it, nor put frankincense on it; for it is a sin offering. And he shall bring it to the priest, and the priest shall take from it his full handful, the memorial offering, and shall burn it as incense on the altar, on the fire offering of Jehovah; it is a sin offering. And the priest shall atone for him, for his sin which he sinned from one of these; and it shall be forgiven him. And it shall be for the priest as a food offering.
Leviticus 5:11-13

According to the Torah, the laws in the Book of Leviticus were given to Moses by God. The book itself states that these laws were spoken by God to Moses at or near Mount Sinai and were to be relayed to the Israelites. This means Hebrews 9:22 is wrong. It is an obvious contradiction.

[1213]

You are committing the (exact word fallacy) yet again. The verse is clear. There are no exceptions. This is a contradiction.

If you want me to believe the text actually says something else than is written, you should offer a good reason to believe so. If you can't do that, I have no other option than to reject your baseless opinion.

It speaks about sin offering. And I think it is one example of why people thought forgiveness requires blood according to the law.

And if his hand cannot reach to two turtledoves, or two offspring of a dove, then he who sinned shall bring his offering, a tenth of an ephah of fine flour for a sin offering; he shall not put oil on it, nor put frankincense on it; for it is a sin offering. And he shall bring it to the priest, and the priest shall take from it his full handful, the memorial offering, and shall burn it as incense on the altar, on the fire offering of Jehovah; it is a sin offering. And the priest shall atone for him, for his sin which he sinned from one of these; and it shall be forgiven him. And it shall be for the priest as a food offering.
Leviticus 5:11-13

According to the Torah, the laws in the Book of Leviticus were given to Moses by God. The book itself states that these laws were spoken by God to Moses at or near Mount Sinai and were to be relayed to the Israelites. This means Hebrews 9:22 is wrong. It is an obvious contradiction.

Can you explain why do you think so, how that means Hebrews 9:22 is wrong?

[POI]

If you want me to believe the text actually says something else than is written, you should offer a good reason to believe so. If you can't do that, I have no other option than to reject your baseless opinion.

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).

[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.