Contradiction with Mark 7:15
This verse suggests that nothing outside a person can defile them by going into them, contradicting the prohibitive dietary laws in Leviticus 7:26.
Mark 7:15: If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.
Contradiction with Acts 10:13-15
Peter is told to eat animals previously considered unclean, implying all foods are clean, which contradicts the prohibition against consuming blood in Leviticus 7:26.
Acts 10:13-15: And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.
Contradiction with Romans 14:14
Paul declares that no food is unclean in itself, which contradicts the specific dietary restrictions, including consuming blood, outlined in Leviticus 7:26.
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
This verse states that every creature of God is good and nothing is to be refused if received with thanksgiving, contradicting the specific prohibition of eating blood in Leviticus 7:26.
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 7:26 instructs not to eat blood, which could conflict with the New Testament teaching in the Gospel of Mark, specifically Mark 7:18-19, where Jesus declares all foods clean. This might seem inconsistent because one part of the Bible forbids consuming blood, while another part suggests that food laws are no longer applicable.
Paradox #2
Leviticus 7:26 discusses not consuming blood. A potential doctrinal conflict could be with New Testament teachings, where some passages suggest that dietary laws from the Old Testament are no longer binding for Christians. For example, in the New Testament, Acts 10:15 or Mark 7:18-19 suggest that dietary restrictions do not apply, creating a tension between the Old Testament law and New Testament teachings on dietary matters.
Paradox #3
The contradiction or conflict might come from the different dietary laws and practices observed by various religious groups throughout history. Some people believe the dietary laws in Leviticus are meant to be followed strictly, while others believe they are no longer applicable due to later teachings or interpretations, such as those found in the New Testament. This can lead to differing opinions on whether such laws are still relevant today.
Paradox #4
This verse prohibits the consumption of blood. From a scientific perspective, certain cultures and cuisines include the consumption of blood as safe and nutritious, given proper preparation and cooking to avoid disease. Thus, this prohibition could be seen as inconsistent with modern nutritional and culinary practices.
Paradox #5
Leviticus 7:26 prohibits the consumption of blood from animals. A contradiction might arise when considering other biblical teachings that emphasize the sanctity of life and individual freedom. On one hand, prohibiting blood consumption could be seen as respecting the life force, but on the other hand, it might conflict with the personal choice or cultural practices regarding food. Additionally, some see it as inconsistent with the New Testament teachings that are less focused on dietary laws.