Contradiction with Acts 10:13-15
This passage shows Peter being told that what God has cleansed, he should not consider impure, contradicting the strict dietary laws in Leviticus 11:39.
Acts 10:13-15: And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.
Contradiction with Mark 7:18-19
Jesus declares all foods clean, which opposes the unclean food regulations highlighted in Leviticus 11:39.
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, directly conflicting with the notion of unclean animals in Leviticus 11:39.
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 4:4-5
It is stated that every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be refused if received with thanksgiving, which contradicts the prohibitions in Leviticus 11:39.
1 Timothy 4:4-5: For every creature of God [is] good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
Paradox #1
The theological conflict with this verse might be about the rules about clean and unclean things. In the Bible, different parts sometimes have different rules about what's clean or unclean. This could cause confusion when trying to understand what to follow today.
Paradox #2
Leviticus 11:39 deals with the rules about handling dead animals, which were considered unclean in the dietary laws of the Old Testament. A potential contradiction arises when comparing these rules to the New Testament, specifically in passages like Acts 10:9-16, where Peter receives a vision declaring all foods clean. This shift suggests a conflict between Old Testament laws about clean and unclean foods and the New Testament teaching that these dietary restrictions are no longer necessary for Christians.
Paradox #3
The contradiction with Leviticus 11:39 arises from its ideas about cleanliness. The verse implies a dead animal can make a person unclean through touch, which is a religious or ritual concept rather than a scientific one. Scientifically, touching a dead animal can pose health risks due to bacteria and disease, but this is a matter of hygiene, not spiritual cleanliness.
Paradox #4
The contradiction could arise from dietary laws that were specific to a cultural and historical context. In modern times, these rules might conflict with contemporary views on food, ethics, or personal freedom. Some people might see these ancient dietary restrictions as inconsistent with the idea of individual choice or with the notion that all of creation is inherently good and permissible to consume responsibly.