Contradiction with Matthew 15:11
This verse states that it is not what enters the mouth that defiles a person, but what comes out of the mouth, contradicting Numbers 19:22 which emphasizes external contact as defiling.
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 Mark 7:15
This verse conveys that things from outside cannot defile a person, challenging the notion in Numbers 19:22 that external touch makes clean things unclean.
Mark 7:15: If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.
Contradiction with 1 Corinthians 8:8
This verse suggests food does not bring us closer to God and that its consumption or absence does not defile, which contrasts with the contamination concept in Numbers 19:22.
1 Corinthians 8:8: But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse. [are we the better: or, have we the more] [are we the worse: or, have we the less]
Contradiction with Romans 14:14
This verse states nothing is unclean in itself and only becomes unclean to one who believes it to be, contrasting the inherent impurity idea in Numbers 19:22.
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]
Paradox #1
Numbers 19:22 could present a theological inconsistency when considering the concepts of ritual purity and sin in different parts of the Bible. In some passages, impurity is seen as a result of sin or moral failure, while this verse addresses ceremonial impurity that is not related to moral wrongdoing. This might seem inconsistent because it treats impurity as a contagious condition unrelated to a person's ethical behavior, which could confuse how impurity and sin are interconnected or separated in theological terms.
Paradox #2
Numbers 19:22 talks about cleanliness laws. One possible contradiction is about the transmission of impurity. It could seem inconsistent with New Testament teachings on inner purity, which focus more on the heart and moral actions rather than ritual impurity. This shift in focus from external to internal might seem contradictory.
Paradox #3
The potential scientific conflict could be regarding the concept of ritual purity and contamination. The verse might suggest that physical objects or people can be spiritually or ritually defiled, which is not a concept supported by modern science. Science typically focuses on physical contamination and germs rather than spiritual impurity.
Paradox #4
The contradiction in this verse could be seen in the way it handles ritual cleanliness, where touching something unclean makes a person unclean even if they haven't done anything morally wrong. This might conflict with the idea that moral purity is determined by one's actions and intentions, rather than by physical contact with objects.