Contradiction with Galatians 3:28
This verse emphasizes equality among all individuals in Christ, potentially clashing with ritual impurity laws that distinguish people based on natural bodily functions.
Galatians 3:28: There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
Contradiction with Matthew 15:11
Jesus declares that what goes into the mouth does not defile a person, suggesting a focus on internal rather than external purity, which could contradict Leviticus' emphasis on physical impurities.
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.
Contradiction with Romans 14:14
Paul states that nothing is unclean in itself, which may challenge the idea of natural bodily processes being deemed impure as suggested in Leviticus 15:19.
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 Mark 7:15
Similar to Matthew 15:11, this verse reflects Jesus' teaching that defilement comes from within, not from external factors like ritual impurity associated with menstruation.
Mark 7:15: If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.
Contradiction with Acts 10:15
God's message to Peter that what He has made clean should not be considered impure contrasts with the Levitical codes that label natural bodily processes as 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 Colossians 2:16-17
Paul advises against passing judgment over matters of the law regarding food, drink, or festival days, proposing a shift in focus away from ritual purity laws, implying a potential contradiction to the strict guidelines in Leviticus.
Colossians 2:16-17: 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]
Contradiction with Hebrews 10:10
The verse speaks about being sanctified through Christ's sacrifice, which may negate the necessity for ritual purity laws as outlined in Leviticus.
Hebrews 10:10: By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once [for all].
Contradiction with 1 Samuel 16:7
God’s focus on the heart rather than outward appearances in choosing David contrasts with the emphasis on external ceremonial purity found in Leviticus.
1 Samuel 16:7: But the LORD said unto Samuel, Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have refused him: for [the LORD seeth] not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart. [outward...: Heb. eyes]
Contradiction with Isaiah 1:11-17
This passage indicates that God values righteousness and justice over ritual sacrifice and ceremonial impurity, suggesting a different priority compared to Levitical laws.
Isaiah 1:11-17: To what purpose [is] the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the LORD: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats. [he goats: Heb. great he goats]
Paradox #1
Leviticus 15:19 deals with rules about a woman’s menstrual cycle and declares her unclean during this time. A potential contradiction arises when comparing this view to the New Testament teachings about purity and cleanliness, where spiritual cleanliness is emphasized over physical rituals. Jesus and the apostles taught that external rules don't define purity but rather one's heart and actions, which can seem inconsistent with the strict physical purity laws in the Old Testament.
Paradox #2
The contradiction or inconsistency could relate to how different parts of the Bible emphasize ritual cleanliness and gender roles differently. Some New Testament teachings stress internal purity and faith over external rituals, which could seem at odds with Old Testament laws about physical cleanliness. This may appear inconsistent in terms of what is required for spiritual purity.
Paradox #3
The verse deals with a woman's impurity during her menstrual period. One potential contradiction arises when contrasting biblical rules with modern understandings of biology and gender equality. In earlier societies, this verse might have contributed to gender-based separation and taboos. Today, these views often conflict with contemporary notions of gender equality and scientific understanding of menstruation as a natural biological process, not one associated with impurity.
Paradox #4
The verse discusses physical impurity related to menstruation, which is inconsistent with modern scientific understanding. Menstruation is a natural biological process and not an impurity. This reflects ancient cultural beliefs rather than scientific fact.
Paradox #5
The contradiction or conflict might arise from the fact that this verse could be viewed as treating natural bodily functions as something negative or impure, which can be seen as unfair or stigmatizing toward women. This perspective may not align with modern views on gender equality and bodily autonomy.