Contradiction with Acts 10:15
This verse states that God has cleansed all things, suggesting that no creature should be considered unclean.
Acts 10:15: And the voice [spake] unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, [that] call not thou common.
Contradiction with Mark 7:18-19
Here, it is indicated that nothing from outside a person can defile them, implying freedom from 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 Romans 14:14
This verse declares that nothing is unclean in itself, directly opposing dietary laws of unclean creatures.
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
States that every creature of God is good and nothing is to be refused if received with thanksgiving, contrary to the restriction on eating certain creatures.
1 Timothy 4:4: For every creature of God [is] good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
Contradiction with Colossians 2:16
Suggests freedom from judgment concerning food or drink, challenging dietary prohibitions like those in Leviticus.
Colossians 2:16: Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath [days]: [in meat...: or, for eating and drinking] [respect: or, part]
Paradox #1
The contradiction or conflict in Leviticus 11:41 could relate to differing interpretations about dietary laws. Some people might argue that these laws are culturally specific and not applicable to modern believers, while others might see them as timeless rules to follow. This can cause disagreements on how to apply such laws in contemporary religious practice.
Paradox #2
The contradiction or inconsistency with the verse could be related to its dietary laws. The Bible prohibits eating certain animals categorized as "unclean," but modern science understands that nutritional value and health concerns about eating animals depend more on preparation and handling rather than intrinsic properties. Additionally, many cultures consume these animals without adverse health effects.
Paradox #3
The contradiction or inconsistency in Leviticus 11:41 could be seen in the differing dietary laws over time. In the Old Testament, specific animals were considered unclean and were not to be eaten, reflecting dietary restrictions for the Israelites. However, in the New Testament, these restrictions are relaxed, as seen in accounts like Peter’s vision in Acts 10, where it suggests that no food is inherently unclean. This change might seem contradictory to people questioning why divine instructions would change over time.