Contradiction with Leviticus 11:4
Leviticus 11:4 lists animals that are unclean and should not be eaten, contradicting Deuteronomy 15:22 which allows unclean animals to be eaten in certain circumstances.
Leviticus 11:4: Nevertheless these shall ye not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the hoof: [as] the camel, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he [is] unclean unto you.
Contradiction with Acts 10:13-15
Peter is told to eat animals considered unclean in Jewish law, contradicting the idea in Deuteronomy 15:22 of adhering to specific dietary laws about eating unclean and clean animals.
Acts 10:13-15: And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.
Contradiction with Isaiah 66:17
Condemns those who eat impure food, which contrasts with Deuteronomy 15:22's allowance for eating unclean animals under certain conditions.
Isaiah 66:17: They that sanctify themselves, and purify themselves in the gardens behind one [tree] in the midst, eating swine's flesh, and the abomination, and the mouse, shall be consumed together, saith the LORD. [behind...: or, one after another]
Paradox #1
Deuteronomy 15:22 may appear to have a contradiction because it describes eating an animal that has imperfections or is considered unclean, which conflicts with other parts of the Bible that have strict laws about only eating clean animals. This could seem inconsistent with laws on clean and unclean foods.
Paradox #2
Deuteronomy 15:22 allows the consumption of certain animals within your towns but specifies that both the ceremonially unclean and clean may eat it, like gazelle or deer. This could conflict with other parts of the Old Testament, which emphasize strict dietary laws and restrictions on what those who are unclean may eat. The apparent contradiction is between the inclusivity of this allowance and other parts where dietary purity is strictly enforced.
Paradox #3
Deuteronomy 15:22 could present a moral inconsistency in that it allows for the consumption of animal meat in certain conditions, which might conflict with the ethical beliefs of individuals who value animal life or advocate for vegetarianism. This could be seen as inconsistent with the idea of compassion for all living beings.