Contradiction with Deuteronomy 12:15
This verse allows the Israelites to eat meat, without specifying the need for ritual slaughter and blood covering, which contradicts the specific requirement of blood covering in Leviticus 17:13.
Deuteronomy 12:15: Notwithstanding thou mayest kill and eat flesh in all thy gates, whatsoever thy soul lusteth after, according to the blessing of the LORD thy God which he hath given thee: the unclean and the clean may eat thereof, as of the roebuck, and as of the hart.
Contradiction with Acts 15:29
This verse instructs abstaining from blood, linking it to moral purity in contrast to the ritualistic aspect in Leviticus 17:13, where the focus is on the act of covering blood as a ritual responsibility.
Acts 15:29: That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.
Contradiction with Mark 7:18-19
Jesus declares all foods clean, which contradicts the food laws, including blood-handling practices, outlined in Leviticus 17:13.
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 suggests that no food is unclean in itself, contrasting with Leviticus 17:13's implications on food and ritual purity practices.
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 Corinthians 10:25
Paul advises believers to eat anything sold in the market without raising concerns of conscience, differing from Leviticus 17:13's context of specific handling for hunted animals.
1 Corinthians 10:25: Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, [that] eat, asking no question for conscience sake:
Paradox #1
One possible contradiction is that Leviticus 17:13 requires people to drain the blood of hunted animals and cover it with earth, which emphasizes the sacredness of blood. However, in the New Testament, Jesus speaks of drinking his blood symbolically during the Last Supper, which might confuse the symbolic versus literal treatment of blood between the two Testaments.
Paradox #2
The contradiction could be between the respect for animal life, demonstrated by specific rules on how to treat animals that are hunted, and other biblical passages that sanction animal sacrifices. This might seem inconsistent because one set of rules emphasizes careful handling of animals, while another involves taking their lives for ritual purposes.