It would seem that at least in regards to Bamidbar 19:13 and 20 the Gemara in Shavuos 16b addresses this very question.
וקראי מיתרי הא מיצרך צריכי דתניא ר' אלעזר אומר אם נאמר משכן למה נאמר
מקדש ואם נאמר מקדש למה נאמר משכן אילו נאמר משכן ולא נאמר מקדש הייתי
אומר על משכן יהא חייב שהרי משוח בשמן המשחה ועל מקדש לא יהא חייב ואם
נאמר מקדש ולא נאמר משכן הייתי אומר על מקדש יהא חייב שהרי קדושתו קדושת
עולם ועל משכן לא יהא חייב לכך נאמר משכן לכך נאמר מקדש רבי אלעזר הכי קא
קשיא ליה מכדי משכן איקרי מקדש ומקדש איקרי משכן נכתוב או אידי ואידי
מקדש או אידי ואידי משכן משכן ומקדש למה לי שמע מינה תרתי
The Gemara asks: But is it really superfluous to have both of these verses, one having been sufficient? Aren’t they each necessary to teach a novel ruling? As it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Elazar says: If it is stated: “Tabernacle,” why does it state: “Temple”? And if it is stated: “Temple,” why does it state: “Tabernacle”? He explains: Had the verse stated only: “Tabernacle,” and not stated: “Temple,” I would have said that one is liable for entering the Tabernacle in a state of impurity, since it was anointed with the anointing oil, and therefore it carries greater sanctity, but he is not liable for entering the Temple, which was not anointed with the anointing oil. And had the verse stated only: “Temple,” and not stated: “Tabernacle,” I would have said that one is liable for entering the Temple in a state of impurity, since its sanctity is an eternal sanctity, but he is not liable for entering the Tabernacle, whose sanctity was only for its time. For this reason, it is stated: “Tabernacle,” and for this reason, it is stated: “Temple.”
The Gemara answers: Rabbi Elazar did not base his derivation on a superfluous verse, but on the change in wording between the two verses. This is what is difficult for him: Since the Tabernacle is also called Temple and the Temple is also called Tabernacle, then let the verse write either in both verses: Temple, or in both verses: Tabernacle; why do I need both “Tabernacle” and “Temple”? Conclude two conclusions from it, i.e., that one is liable even for impurity contracted inside the grounds, and that the halakha applies both in the Tabernacle and in the Temple.
