Contradiction with Acts 10:13-15
This passage includes a vision in which Peter is told that God has made all animals clean, contradicting the dietary laws in Deuteronomy 14:7.
Acts 10:13-15: And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.
Contradiction with Mark 7:18-19
Jesus declares that all foods are clean, opposing the dietary restrictions outlined in Deuteronomy 14:7.
Mark 7:18-19: Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?
Paradox #1
Deuteronomy 14:7 may be seen as inconsistent with certain New Testament teachings that declare all foods clean, such as in Acts 10:15 or Mark 7:18-19. This could appear contradictory because Deuteronomy lists specific dietary restrictions, while the New Testament passages convey a different message about food laws.
Paradox #2
The contradiction or inconsistency related to Deuteronomy 14:7 could involve discrepancies between this dietary law and similar laws outlined in other parts of the Bible. For instance, there may be differences between what animals are considered clean or unclean in other books, such as Leviticus. These inconsistencies might arise from different traditions or contexts in which the texts were written. In simple terms, the rules about what animals are okay to eat might not match up perfectly in different parts of the Bible, leading to debates or confusion about the exact regulations.
Paradox #3
The verse mentions certain animals that chew the cud or have divided hooves, listing them as unclean. The contradiction arises because some animals, like rabbits, are said to chew the cud, which is not scientifically accurate. Rabbits practice reingestion of soft fecal pellets, but this is different from the ruminating cud-chewing process of animals like cows.
Paradox #4
One potential contradiction in this verse is related to the distinctions it makes between clean and unclean animals for consumption. This might conflict with contemporary views on inclusivity and dietary freedom, where all animals could be seen as acceptable for eating regardless of religious or traditional rules. Additionally, these dietary laws might conflict with modern ethical views on animal rights and environmental concerns that focus more on the manner of treatment and sustainability rather than specific prohibitions.