Contradiction with Acts 10:13-15
These verses show a vision where Peter is told by God that what He has cleansed should not be called common or unclean, contradicting the prohibitions on eating certain things in Deuteronomy 14:21.
Acts 10:13-15: And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.
Contradiction with Leviticus 11:7-8
While Deuteronomy 14:21 prohibits eating certain animals, Leviticus 11 provides a similar dietary law emphasizing that touching carcasses of unclean animals is forbidden, creating discrepancy with permission to give or sell such food to foreigners.
Leviticus 11:7-8: And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he [is] unclean to you.
Contradiction with Mark 7:18-19
Jesus declares all foods clean, suggesting that dietary restrictions like those in Deuteronomy 14:21 are no longer applicable.
Mark 7:18-19: Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?
Contradiction with Romans 14:14
Paul states that nothing is unclean in itself, contrasting with the specific prohibitions on unclean animals in Deuteronomy 14:21.
Romans 14:14: I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that [there is] nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him [it is] unclean. [unclean: Gr. common]
Contradiction with Colossians 2:16
This verse indicates that dietary laws should not be used to judge others, seeming to contradict the specific regulations in Deuteronomy 14:21.
Colossians 2:16: Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath [days]: [in meat...: or, for eating and drinking] [respect: or, part]
Contradiction with 1 Timothy 4:3-5
These verses suggest that all foods created by God are good and should not be refused, contradicting the dietary prohibitions outlined in Deuteronomy 14:21.
1 Timothy 4:3-5: Forbidding to marry, [and commanding] to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
Paradox #1
Deuteronomy 14:21 might seem to present a contradiction because it prohibits Israelites from eating certain animals but allows them to sell those same animals to foreigners. This could appear inconsistent, as it applies different standards to Israelites and non-Israelites concerning food laws.
Paradox #2
The verse could present a doctrinal inconsistency when compared to other parts of the Bible that discuss dietary laws or interactions with non-Israelites. For example, it might seem contradictory to passages that promote equality and fairness, as this verse allows an act for one group that it forbids for the Israelites. Additionally, it could appear inconsistent with New Testament teachings that declare all foods clean. This might lead to confusion about the application and universality of certain laws within different contexts and covenants.
Paradox #3
One inconsistency with this verse arises when considering its dietary laws, particularly about not eating certain animals and not consuming what dies naturally. This contrasts with later biblical texts, like Acts 10:9-16 in the New Testament, where dietary restrictions are lifted, suggesting a shift in understanding or application of these laws.
Paradox #4
The contradiction in Deuteronomy 14:21 involves the prohibition against eating animals that die of themselves. Scientifically, it is because animals that die naturally may have diseases or be spoiled, which could be unsafe to eat. This prohibition aligns with modern food safety practices warning against consuming meat from animals that haven't been properly slaughtered. So, there isn't a direct scientific conflict; rather, it reflects an understanding consistent with modern hygiene standards.
Paradox #5
This verse has a potential contradiction because it prohibits the Israelites from eating something that they can sell to foreigners. This raises questions about why something unclean for one group is acceptable for others, suggesting a possible inconsistency in applying moral or purity standards.