Contradiction with Acts 10:15
This verse states "What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common," which contradicts the dietary laws of Leviticus 11:5 by suggesting that all animals may be considered clean.
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
Jesus declares all foods clean, contradicting the specific prohibition of certain animals found in Leviticus 11:5.
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 expresses the belief that nothing is unclean in itself, contradicting the notion of specifically unclean animals as described in Leviticus 11:5.
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
These verses state that every creature of God is good and nothing is to be refused if received with thanksgiving, contradicting the dietary restrictions of Leviticus 11:5.
1 Timothy 4:4-5: For every creature of God [is] good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
Contradiction with Matthew 15:11
Jesus teaches that what goes into the mouth does not defile a man, which contradicts the dietary defilement described in Leviticus 11:5.
Matthew 15:11: Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.
Paradox #1
Leviticus 11:5 mentions the coney (or hyrax) as chewing the cud, which has been considered a contradiction because hyraxes do not chew the cud in the same way cows or other ruminants do. This can create confusion regarding the accuracy of animal descriptions in the Bible.
Paradox #2
Leviticus 11:5 mentions the characteristics of an animal that make it unclean, implying a specific animal that doesn't align with the factual characteristics such animals exhibit in reality. This has been seen as an inconsistency because the description doesn't match actual biological attributes. This issue mainly arises in discussions about the accuracy of animal descriptions in biblical texts.
Paradox #3
Leviticus 11:5 mentions an animal that is described as chewing the cud, but according to modern biological knowledge, it doesn't actually have this characteristic. This inconsistency arises from ancient classifications which differ from our current scientific understanding of animal biology.
Paradox #4
The contradiction in Leviticus 11:5 arises from its classification of a creature as a type of animal that chews the cud, which is not supported by modern biological knowledge. In simple terms, the verse describes an animal with a specific behavior it doesn't actually have according to science.
Paradox #5
Leviticus 11:5 refers to dietary laws regarding animals that are considered clean or unclean to eat. A potential contradiction might arise when these ancient dietary rules are compared to modern views on dietary choices, animal rights, and environmental concerns. For instance, some people might view these dietary restrictions as arbitrary or no longer relevant, creating a conflict between following these ancient rules and adopting modern ethical standards regarding food. Additionally, the specific mention of animals in this context could conflict with contemporary beliefs about treating all animals with respect and compassion.
Paradox #6
Leviticus 11:5 mentions the hyrax, saying it chews the cud, but scientifically, hyraxes do not chew the cud like true ruminants. This is sometimes seen as a conflict between the biblical description and modern zoological understanding.