Contradiction with Matthew 15:11
This verse suggests that what goes into someone's mouth does not defile them, contradicting the dietary restrictions implied in Leviticus 17:15.
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 Acts 10:13-15
This passage involves a divine command to Peter, stating that what God has cleansed should not be considered impure, contrasting the impurity associated with eating animals that died of themselves mentioned in Leviticus 17:15.
Acts 10:13-15: And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.
Contradiction with Romans 14:14
Paul declares that nothing is unclean in itself, which contrasts with the clear distinctions made between clean and unclean in Leviticus 17:15.
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 it is received with thanksgiving, which can be seen as opposing the prohibitions on certain foods in Leviticus 17:15.
1 Timothy 4:4: For every creature of God [is] good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
Paradox #1
Leviticus 17:15 might seem inconsistent with the overall biblical laws on purity and food, as it allows certain things to be eaten under specific conditions. This could appear to conflict with other stricter dietary laws found elsewhere in the Bible.
Paradox #2
Leviticus 17:15 might seem to conflict with the idea of all foods being clean, which is presented in the New Testament, like in Acts 10:15 where Peter is told that what God has made clean should not be called impure. The Old Testament laws about cleanliness and unclean food can seem contradictory to the New Testament teachings where such dietary restrictions are lifted.
Paradox #3
One potential contradiction with Leviticus 17:15 could relate to ancient dietary practices. The verse suggests that certain foods were considered unclean and required purification rituals if consumed. However, historical records indicate that different Israelite communities might have had varying interpretations and practices regarding dietary laws. This inconsistency in dietary customs could be seen as a contradiction when comparing the biblical text to historical evidence of diverse eating habits within ancient societies.
Paradox #4
This verse suggests a practice based on ancient dietary laws that some might see as conflicting with modern understanding of food safety and nutrition. It prescribes actions related to consuming certain animals that may not align with contemporary science's approach to food preparation and contamination prevention.
Paradox #5
The contradiction or conflict in Leviticus 17:15 could arise from the strict dietary rule against eating certain things, which may conflict with the ideas of personal freedom or differing cultural practices around food in today's diverse society. Additionally, the consequences outlined for breaking this rule might seem harsh or unnecessary to modern audiences, considering different interpretations of cleanliness and health.