Contradiction with Mark 7:18-19
Jesus declares all foods clean, contrasting Leviticus 11:4's dietary restrictions.
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 instructed to eat unclean animals, suggesting a departure from Leviticus 11:4's prohibitions.
Acts 10:13-15: And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.
Contradiction with Romans 14:14
Paul states that no food is unclean, in contradiction to Leviticus 11:4's specific restrictions.
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]
Paradox #1
Leviticus 11:4 could be seen as inconsistent when compared to New Testament teachings. In the Old Testament, certain animals are considered unclean, and people are instructed not to eat them. However, in the New Testament, specifically in Acts 10:15, it is suggested that no animal should be considered unclean, which might seem like a contradiction between the two testaments regarding dietary laws.
Paradox #2
Leviticus 11:4 discusses dietary restrictions, specifically about animals that should not be eaten. Some people see a contradiction between these Old Testament laws and the New Testament teachings, such as in Acts 10:15, where Peter is taught that all foods are clean. This could be seen as a conflict between Old Testament law and New Testament teachings on dietary practices.
Paradox #3
Leviticus 11:4 refers to dietary laws regarding animals that could and could not be eaten. A contradiction or inconsistency might be that while these laws were followed by ancient Israelites, they are not adhered to by Christians today, despite both groups referencing the same scriptures. This change can be seen as a conflict between different interpretations and developments of religious practices over time.
Paradox #4
The verse refers to animals with certain characteristics and labels them as unclean. One point of scientific inconsistency is in the description of animals that chew the cud and have divided hooves. Modern science categorizes animals differently, and some animals mentioned in the context do not fit this description accurately, like rabbits. Rabbits do not chew cud in the way ruminant animals do, which reflects a misunderstanding in the classification of animals according to modern biology.
Paradox #5
The contradiction or inconsistency in Leviticus 11:4 could be related to dietary restrictions outlined in the Old Testament, which some might find conflicting with the New Testament teachings that often emphasize spiritual purity over dietary laws. This can create a tension for some believers who are unsure whether to adhere strictly to Old Testament laws or to embrace the broader, more inclusive messages found later in the Bible.