Contradiction with Mark 7:18-19
Jesus declares all foods clean, contradicting the dietary restrictions in Leviticus 11:27.
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 Acts 10:13-15
Peter is told in a vision not to call any animal impure, which conflicts with prohibitions in Leviticus 11:27.
Acts 10:13-15: And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.
Contradiction with Romans 14:14
Paul asserts that no food is unclean in itself, opposing the unclean designation of some animals in Leviticus 11:27.
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 1 Timothy 4:4
Every creature of God is good and nothing is to be refused if received with thanksgiving, challenging the restrictions in Leviticus 11:27.
1 Timothy 4:4: For every creature of God [is] good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
Paradox #1
One potential theological conflict with Leviticus 11:27 is its dietary law regarding animals that walk on paws, which is prohibited for eating. This could seem inconsistent with later New Testament teachings where dietary restrictions are relaxed or reinterpreted, such as in Acts 10:15, where Peter is told that no food is unclean. This shift might appear to some as a contradiction between Old Testament law and New Testament grace and freedom in dietary matters.
Paradox #2
Leviticus 11:27 discusses dietary laws, specifically about what animals are considered clean or unclean to eat according to Old Testament regulations. A possible doctrinal conflict arises with the New Testament, particularly in passages like Acts 10:15 and Mark 7:18-19, where dietary restrictions are lifted and deemed no longer applicable under the New Covenant through Jesus. This could be seen as inconsistent because what was once required or forbidden under Jewish law is no longer binding for Christians.
Paradox #3
Leviticus 11:27 deals with dietary laws regarding animals that walk on paws. A possible contradiction or conflict is that other parts of the Bible, such as Acts 10 in the New Testament, suggest that such dietary restrictions were later abolished or are not necessary for Christians. This can create a tension between the Old Testament laws and New Testament teachings.
Paradox #4
The verse describes certain animals as unclean based on specific physical traits. The scientific conflict is that modern biology uses evidence-based criteria to classify animals, focusing on evolutionary relationships and genetic evidence rather than subjective descriptions like "clean" or "unclean."
Paradox #5
The moral conflict could arise from the dietary restrictions mentioned, which might seem inconsistent with later biblical teachings that focus on spiritual faith over specific food laws. It might also conflict with modern views on dietary choices and religious freedom.