Swearing an Oath

God good to all, or just a few?

PSA 145:9 The LORD is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works.

JER 13:14 And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the LORD: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them.

Well this is a great one to start with, because it shows how simply looking into a verses context can easily dissipate any apparent contradiction. PSA 145 is absolutely true. As we have discussed before God's patience and mercy are the only reason for the delay in Judgment. Why? so that anyone can come to repentance. Jer 13:14 Is talking about God's judgment of a specific tribe of Israel. After mercifully and patiently giving them repeated deliverance from their own stupidity and sin. The end of the verse “I will allow no pity or mercy or compassion to keep me from destroying them.(NIV)” Would seem to be a contradiction, but what your missing is that he will not allow his mercy to stop this well deserved judgment. The judgment itself is given why? Jer 13:17
But if you do not listen,
   I will weep in secret
   because of your pride;
   my eyes will weep bitterly,
   overflowing with tears,
   because the LORD's flock will be taken captive.
Even his punishment is given so that his people might come to repentance. Had he not mercy he would have judged everyone for there egregious sin.

War or Peace?

EXO 15:3 The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.

ROM 15:33 Now the God of peace be with you all. Amen.

Great verses as far as contradiction I'm not sure what I'm suppose to see here? The Lord is a warrior when it is necessary to eradicate evil. Can he not be a man of War when necessary and be the God of peace? Peace is only accomplished when there is no longer evil. The eradication of evil is necessary for peace. These two verses are in essence one in the same. Maybe your missing the Why behind the warrior. He is a proponent of war to achieve peace. Exodus is talking about specific battles, but it is the same principal on the large scale, and the end game of Judgment. To eradicate evil not because he thinks it is fun, but to achieve peace and justice.

Who is the father of Joseph?

MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.

The reason for the genealogies through out the bible was because it was very important for the Jews. Prophecy in many cases was speaking of genealogies. The Messiah was to come from the Tribe of Judah a descendant of David. If you know that in advance the reason for posting such seemingly non-essential information becomes clear. Matthew is talking about the genealogy of Joseph. Luke is talking about Mary's lineage. The point was to show that Jesus was not Josephs son, but conceived through Mary by God. So the physical genealogy of Jesus was through Mary. The contradiction comes in when you misunderstand Luke 3:23 He was supposed to be Josephs son, but he was not and his lineage was that of his mother. Which is then listed. One of the lineages is his legal son ship, because of his step father Father Joseph. The other is his Genetic lineage through his mother.

Who was at the Empty Tomb? Is it:
MAT 28:1 In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.

MAR 16:1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.

JOH 20:1 The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.

This one is funny because it says the same person in all three verses. It is very typical of biblical writing to name the most important people first, and the less important people after that, or not at all. The reason Mary Magdalene is so important is because she is the one who did most of the speaking and spreading the word to others about Jesus resurrection. There were others there, but they were non-essential to the story as it applies to the disciples being told about what happened. Which is what the story is about. There is no contradiction here just less information.

Is Jesus equal to or lesser than?
JOH 10:30 I and my Father are one.

JOH 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

We already covered this in the doctrine of the trinity. Jesus and the father are one. The father is greater than He. Just like your head and your foot are part of the same body. But, obviously your head is indeed greater than your foot.

Which first--beasts or man?
GEN 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
GEN 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

GEN 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
GEN 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

Genesis chapter 1 is the sequence of events. There is an orderliness to the description that is lacking in the second chapter. In chapter 2, the writer is not concerned to tell you about the timing of the events because he has already told you that information in chapter 1. His focus is the origin of man and his relationship to God and creation. You see a contradiction In Gen 2:19 because your missing the word had, God had formed (past tense) then brought them to Adam after he was created. Genesis 2:18 is taken out of context which is obvious if you read on. The story is about creating woman, not animals.
But for Adam no suitable helper was found. So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh. Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

The number of beasts in the ark
GEN 7:2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.

GEN 7:8 Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth, GEN 7:9 There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah.

Genesis 7:2 is saying that Noah should get 7 pairs of clean animals (or animals they were allowed to eat) and 2 each of the unclean animals. Basically he said bring extra food. Which would make sense as they would need something to eat since they were on the ark for approximately 370 days.

Genesis 7:8-9 is not talking about how many of each animal were on the ark, but rather how the animals entered the ark are there own accord by the command of God.

How many stalls and horsemen?
1KI 4:26 And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen.

2CH 9:25 And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem.

The number of horseman is the same. As far as the stalls.
1KI 4:26 And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen.
2CH 9:25 And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen
The confusion on your part is the word 'urvah translated as stall into English. 'urvah means basically a place to put animals. It isn't singular.
So Kings says he had 40,000 'urvah just of horses, and Chronicles says he has 4,000 'urvah for horses and chariots. Which if you do the math it is apparent he had 4,000 'urvah that held places for ten individual horses and a chariot a piece. But, when talking just about the horses like in Kings it he had 40,000 'urvah for horses.

Is it folly to be wise or not?
PRO 4:7 Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding.

ECC 1:18 For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.

1CO 1:19: "For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent."

The verse in proverbs and the verse in Ecclesiastes don't contradict each other. Get wisdom, but more importantly get understanding. With much wisdom comes much grief we know that to be true. 1CO 1:19 Is talking about God destroying the wisdom of the worldly, not biblical wisdom.

Human vs. ghostly impregnation
ACT 2:30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;

MAT 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

That part of Acts is talking about David. Mary was a result of the “fruit of his loins.” Like I said before it was prophesied that Christ would come from the line of David, which he did. Acts is not talking about David knocking up one of his great great great great great grandchildren. Some of these “contradictions” are just ignorant.

The sins of the father
ISA 14:21 Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities.

DEU 24:16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

Isaiah is talking about wiping out a monarchical bloodline in Babylon. It isn't a rule of judgment. It was the ending of a series of oppressive rulers. That to complete he would have to wipe out there bloodline or the monarchy would continue.
That verse in Deuteronomy is part of the Old Law governing the nation of Israel . Saying that in the nation of Israel, you don't judge the parents for the actions of the children and vice versa.

The bat is not a bird
LEV 11:13 And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,
LEV 11:14 And the vulture, and the kite after his kind;
LEV 11:15 Every raven after his kind;
LEV 11:16 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,
LEV 11:17 And the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl,
LEV 11:18 And the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle,
LEV 11:19 And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.

DEU 14:11 Of all clean birds ye shall eat.
DEU 14:12 But these are they of which ye shall not eat: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,
DEU 14:13 And the glede, and the kite, and the vulture after his kind,
DEU 14:14 And every raven after his kind,
DEU 14:15 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,
DEU 14:16 The little owl, and the great owl, and the swan,
DEU 14:17 And the pelican, and the gier eagle, and the cormorant,
DEU 14:18 And the stork, and the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.

'owph, which is translated above as "bird," would be considered to be any winged creature. The language of English vs. Hebrew Greek Aramaic is so vastly different. Your trying to say that because Moses at the time used a word that would translate best into the word bird today, was somehow his organization of a classifications for animals. The point of these verses was to talk about clean and unclean food, not to classify species.

Rabbits do not chew their cud
LEV 11:6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.

"Gerah," the term which appears in the MT means (chewed) cud, and also perhaps grain, or berry (also a 20th of a sheckel, but I think that we can agree that that is irrelevant here). It does *not* mean dung, and there is a perfectly adequate Hebrew word for that, which could have been used. Furthermore, the phrase translated "chew the cud" in the KJV is more exactly "bring up the cud." Rabbits do not bring up anything; they let it go all the way through, then eat it again. The description given in Leviticus is inaccurate, and that's that. Rabbits do eat their own dung; they do not bring anything up and chew on it.

Chewing the cud refers to any partially digested food. One of the key words here is 'alah, and it is found in some grammatical form on literally every page of the OT. This is because it is a word that encompasses many concepts other than "bring up." It also can mean ascend up, carry up, cast up, fetch up, get up, recover, restore, take up, and much more. It is a catch-all verb form describing the moving of something to another place. Basically whoever wrote this is saying that Rabbits chew on their partial digestive food, after it is excreted so it doesn't count. It has to be thrown up in his view. Which just isn't true. Rabbits practice refection a process whereby these animals pass pellets of partially digested food, which they chew on (along with the waste material) in order to give their stomachs another go at getting the nutrients out. That makes them “unclean”.

Fowl from waters or ground?
GEN 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
GEN 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

GEN 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

Once again here we are in Genesis that is not a chronological account of creation, but the story of it's interaction. Notice these are 3 verses which go together but are out of order. which he has reversed to make it seem like there is some contradiction. It is simply describing that life was created and flourishing in every plane of the earth. Water, air, and land. Not to mention Genesis 2:19 uses the Hebrew word yatsar which means formed. And vs 20 uses sharats which means to bring forth abundantly.

Moses' personality
NUM 12:3: "Now the man Moses was very meek, above all the men which were upon the fact of the earth."

NUM 31:14, 17, 18: "And Moses was wroth...And Moses said unto them, "Have ye saved all the women alive? ... Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman, ... But all the women children ... keep alive for yourselves."

Well this one is out there. Someone is meek so they can never get angry? Meekness is a sign of humility not weakness. He was angry because the people had violated an order of God. I suppose this could be a contradiction if a meek person could not ever get angry. But, I don't think a human free of anger exist. And of course Moses was the meekest man on earth at the time, not all time. If you study Moses's actions you would see pretty astounding examples of how meek he was.

Righteous live?
PSA 92:12: "The righteous shall flourish like the palm tree."

ISA 57:1: "The righteous perisheth, and no man layeth it to heart."

These are not even complete verses, let alone complete context. May I introduce you to the following verse in Psa 92 Those that be planted in the house of the LORD shall flourish in the courts of our God. God is saying that he will tend to the righteous vs. how he will deal with the wicked. These doesn't of course mean monetarily as so many tv preachers would tell you, but it is talking about flourishing in the things that really matter eternal value. Isa 57 really? Really? Can I give you the rest of that verse and the ones following it. The righteous perisheth, and no man layeth it to heart,and merciful men [are] taken away, none considering that the righteous is taken away from the evil [to come]. He shall enter into peace: they shall rest in their beds, [each one] walking [in] his uprightness. The verse itself explains your "contradiction".

ACT 1:18: "Now this man (Judas) purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out."

MAT 27:5-7: "And he (Judas) cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself. And the chief priests...bought with them the potter's field."

Well I would love to take this opportunity to point out the beauty of the New Testament. It was given to us by God the way it is, so we can corroborate the story of Jesus and the apostles, from different points of view. It is so funny that when two accounts differ they consider it a contradiction, and when they are the same they claim that it isn't original but copied from other accounts.
Each account tends to focus on different things. Matthew is focusing on the actions of the Pharisees , not Judas. In the that verse it was a brief one sentence side note. About the demise of Judas. Can the account of Acts and Matthew be corroborated. Absolutely. How many people do you know that fell and died because there gut bust open and there insides gush out? My guess would be not many. If you know about the Jewish traditions and laws of the time. You know how they feel about touching dead bodies. It was a big deal. So if Judas went and hanged himself and was left there for any length of time. His body would be subject to decomposition, rigamortis ect. Which would explain why he burst open if he fell out of the tree. Why would acts not include the whole story. Even in acts there not focusing on Judas, there going over the story of Jesus death and resurrection. There focus of this brief description of the death of Judas. Was probably to point of the shame and dishonor which he subjected himself to.

Jesus' first sermon plain or mount?
MAT 5:1,2: "And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him: And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying...."

LUK 6:17,20: "And he came down with them, and stood in the plain, and the company of his disciples, and a great multitude of people...came to hear him.. And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples and said..."

Well neither of these were Jesus first sermon that is an assumption made by the guy who wrote this question. Luke chronicles a number of teachings and sermons before the sermon on the mount. And once again a reading of scripture explains the apparent contradiction. Luke: And it came to pass in those days, that he went out into a mountain to pray, and continued all night in prayer to God. And when it was day, he called [unto him] his disciples: and of them he chose twelve, whom also he named apostles; Then he went down to the plain and taught the multitudes.

Matthew: And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him: And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying ….

It is obvious in both accounts that Jesus went onto the mountain and taught and talked with his disciples. Then taught the multitudes on the plain which is recorded in Luke.

Jesus' last words
MAT 27:46,50: "And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, eli, lama sabachthani?" that is to say, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" ...Jesus, when he cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost."

LUK 23:46: "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, "Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit:" and having said thus, he gave up the ghost."

JOH 19:30: "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, "It is finished:" and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost."

Matthew says and he cried again not saying what. Luke says what he said. And John being the last Gospel written and probably having read the others commented on what he remembered they had left out, and avoid repeating what they had already said. It is not a matter of either or. That he had to have said one and not the other. That's why we have the synoptic Gospels to tell the same story form 4 different points of view. Christ spoke all that is recorded, probably even more than what is recorded in the Gospels. The 4 Gospels enrich each other all giving different details, never contradicting or changing the meaning of the actions or teaching.

Years of famine
II SAMUEL 24:13: So God came to David, and told him, and said unto him, shall SEVEN YEARS OF FAMINE come unto thee in thy land? or will thou flee three months before thine enemies, while they pursue. thee?

I CHRONICLES 21:11: SO God came to David, and said unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Choose thee. Either THREE YEARS OF FAMINE or three months to be destroyed before thy foes, while that the sword of thine enemies overtaketh thee;

Looking into this I found a video, figured I would spice it up a bit. [yt=425,350]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ugFqzreFkJM&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ugFqzreFkJM&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/yt]

Moved David to anger?
II SAMUEL 24: And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah.

I CHRONICLES 21: And SATAN stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.

In 2nd Samuel the authors always contribute any actions as inspired by God because nothing happens without his knowledge. So in a broad sense God did move against David. He allowed Satan to tempt him. Chronicles point out who the tempter was, while Samuel points out why he was allowed to be tempted. God does not tempt anyone. He restrains temptation according to his will. Notice Samuel doesn't Say God tempted him but God moved against him which allowed temptation to take place. Also for some of you scratching you heads. Why did God not want them to number the people. He was angry because he had delivered David time and time again. Yet, David became prideful. Pride was the sin that moved God to anger.

The GENEALOGY OF JESUS?
In two places in the New Testament the genealogy of Jesus son of Mary is mentioned. MAT 1:6-16 and LUK 3:23-31. Each gives the ancestors of Joseph the CLAIMED husband of Mary and Step father of Jesus. The first one starts from Abraham(verse 2) all the way down to Jesus. The second one from Jesus all the way back to Adam. The only common name to these two lists between David and Jesus is JOSEPH, How can this be true? and also How can Jesus have a genealogy when all Muslims and most Christians believe that Jesus had/has no father.
See answer to who is Josephs father.
In addition matthew is a more Jewish perspective on the life of Jesus and his gospel focusses on Jesus as King of Israel. His genealogy, being Joseph's, is along the line of the Kings of Israel.
Luke is a Gentile writing to a Gentile (Theophilus) and he also traveled with Paul in his ministry to the Gentiles, even to the end of his recorded ministry. He focusses on Jesus as the Son of Man. And thus his genealogy, being Mary's, goes back to Adam. Furthermore we notice that Luke's nativity is more or less taken from Mary's perspective, while Matthew's more or less from Joseph's. Which is again consistent with their corresponding genealogies.

God be seen?
EXO 24:9,10; AMO 9:1; GEN 26:2; and JOH 14:9
God CAN be seen:
"And I will take away my hand, and thou shalt see my backparts." (EXO 33:23)
"And the Lord spake to Moses face to face, as a man speaketh to his friend." (EXO 33:11)
"For I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." (GEN 32:30)

God CANNOT be seen:
"No man hath seen God at any time." (JOH 1:18)
"And he said, Thou canst not see my face; for there shall no man see me and live." (EXO 33:20)
"Whom no man hath seen nor can see." (1TIM 6:16)

Once again we have the Trinity. The father, son, and Holy spirit. Jesus could of course be seen and was throughout the Old and New Testament. The confusion comes from people not understanding the nature of God. God was seen in the Old Testament, only, it wasn’t the Father. It was Jesus. Jesus said in John 8:58, "Before Abraham was, I AM." He was quoting God speaking to Moses at the burning bush in Exodus 3:14. If you can grasp the trinity this “contradiction” falls apart. The father can not be seen, The Son can. If you would like me to elaborate and go through this verse be verse let me know.

CRUEL, UNMERCIFUL, DESTRUCTIVE, and FEROCIOUS or KIND, MERCIFUL, and GOOD:
"I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy." (JER 13:14) "Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not, but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling."

"The Lord is very pitiful and of tender mercy." (JAS 5:11)
"For his mercy endureth forever." (1CH 16:34)
"The Lord is good to all, and his tender mercies are over all his works." (PSA 145:9)
"God is love." (1JO 4:16)
Once again we have. The God can not be both merciful and judge argument. We touched on this already. Of course once again JER 13:14 speaking of an instance of Judgment as a warning to repent. God's mercy abounds in fact all you have to do is ask for forgiveness. If not you will be counted guilty of your sins and reap the punishment. This question comes from a stance of not even bothering to try to understand the Almighty. His, mercy, his forgiveness, his patience, and then his just judgment. If He is not merciful no sin would be allowed, if He was not patient we would have been judged long ago, and if he is not a just judge then justice does not exist.

Tempts?
"And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham." (GEN 22:1)

"Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God; for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man." (JAS 1:13)

Genesis is talking about tempting in the form of testing (nacah) . James is talking about temptation to sin (peirazō). Yes it is a shame English is such a horrible language. Yes it is a shame we all don't speak and read in ancient tongues. Is it a contradiction...no

Ascend to heaven
"And Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven." (2KI 2:11)

"No man hath ascended up to heaven but he that came down from heaven, ... the Son of Man." (JOH 3:13)
Ddoes it say Elijah ascended.. No If you got to the verses around it it says he was taken up to heaven. No man has ever gotten there by his own power except for Jesus.

How many times did the cock crow?
MAR 14:72 And the second time the cock crew. And Peter called to mind the word that Jesus said unto him, Before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice. And when he thought thereon, he wept.

MAT 26:74 Then began he to curse and to swear, saying, I know not the man. And immediately the cock crew.
MAT 26:75 And Peter remembered the word of Jesus, which said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. And he went out, and wept bitterly.

LUK 22:60 And Peter said, Man, I know not what thou sayest. And immediately, while he yet spake, the cock crew.
LUK 22:61 And the Lord turned, and looked upon Peter. And Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice.

JOH 13:38 Jesus answered him, Wilt thou lay down thy life for my sake? Verily, verily, I say unto thee, The cock shall not crow, still thou hast denied me thrice.

JOH 18:27 Peter then denied again: and immediately the cock crew.

Well, first of all, Matthew, Luke and John don’t say once, they say the cock shall not crow until you deny me thrice. Now what that is saying is the time for the cock crowing. I think one of the gospels refers to it this way, the cock crowing, there’s a time in the morning when you call it the cock crowing. It’s not just one cock, they are just crowing away. So the Bible says, before the time of the cock. Matthew, Luke and John say, before the time of the cock crowing, when they all start crowing you will deny Me trice. Now, Mark is a little bit more specific, and it’s quite interesting, because Jesus is being very gracious to Peter; He said, the cock will not crow twice before you deny Me, thrice. Now you read the book of Mark, and you find that a rooster crowed, apparently an hour too early. For the first time Peter denied his Lord, it says, immediately the cock crew, the rooster crowed. And that should have been a warning to Peter. But he persisted, and then it’s an hour later before all the roosters began crowing at once. There’s not a contradiction, in fact it gives us an insight into the grace of God and the warning that He gave. That’s a very strange thing to say, the rooster won’t crow twice until you deny Me thrice. Wait a minute, when a rooster starts crowing they all start crowing. So this is a very specific example of the accuracy of scripture, in fact, not a contradiction. (courtesy of www.thebereancall.org) There is some more points to add to this but this was a nice summary.

Does every man sin?
1KI 8:46 If they sin against thee, (for there is no man that sinneth not,) and thou be angry with them, and deliver them to the enemy, so that they carry them away captives unto the land of the enemy, far or near;

2CH 6:36 If they sin against thee, (for there is no man which sinneth not,) and thou be angry with them, and deliver them over before their enemies, and they carry them away captives unto a land far off or near;

PRO 20:9 Who can say, I have made my heart clean, I am pure from my sin?

ECC 7:20 For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not.

JO1 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
JO1 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
JO1 1:10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

JO1 3:9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

Really, this is considered a contradiction. Wow. Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin. Let me lay it down for you. We have all sinned and fallen short, the only way to be forgiven is God. Once you are born again your free from sin and it is not counted against you. That is salvation, that is the mystery of God, that is forgiveness you can neither comprehend nor fathom, that is being born again, the only thing it is not is a contradiction.

Who bought potter's field
ACT 1:18 Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.
ACT 1:19 And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.

MAT 27:6 And the chief priests took the silver pieces, and said, It is not lawful for to put them into the treasury, because it is the price of blood.
MAT 27:7 And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in.
MAT 27:8 Wherefore that field was called, The field of blood, unto this day.

I suppose if common sense and unbiased reasoning were omitted from this discussion, then one might conclude that these differences represent a legitimate contradiction. If one believes it is wrong to say a father bought a car for his son, when in actuality the son purchased the car with $5,000 his father gave him, then I suppose that Acts 1:18 and Matthew 27:5-6 are contradictory. Judas furnished the means for them to buy the field. Attributing the field to him, in an indirect sense. The terminology is used all throughout the bible. Attributing acts or possessions to the one who provided the means or ordered it to be done. Even though it wasn't a physical action of the person. This was big news at the time If you asked the Pharisees who bought the field they would have told you Judas. Why? Because according to Jewish law they couldn't have bought it, it had to be attributed to the one who provided the means.

Who bears guilt?
GAL 6:2 Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.

GAL 6:5 For every man shall bear his own burden.

A foolish suggestion that this would be a contradiction. It seems obvious that we are to do both, not either/or. Had one of the verses above said to "bear his own burdens only" or to "bear one another's burdens only", then we would have a contradiction. It is obvios that we all bear our own burdens, but we are also to bear one another's in the body of Christ.

Do you answer a fool?
PRO 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.

PRO 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

Certainly you would find it strange that a supposed contradiction be right next to one another. What we have here is not contradiction, but dilemma an indication that when it comes to answering fools, you can't win, because they are fools, and there is no practical cure for foolery. So: It is unwise to argue with a fool at his own level and recognize his own foolish suppositions, but it is good sometimes to refute him soundly, lest his foolishness seem to be confirmed by your silence. Either way you loose when it comes to fools unless they decide to wise up.

Where was Jesus three days after his baptism?
MAR 1:12 And immediately the spirit driveth him into the wilderness.

JOH 1:35 Again the next day after John stood, and two of his disciples;

Come on man this is getting almost laughable. John never mentions the chronological events after baptism. Did you even read this before posting it? Try reading it again do those to verses even talk about the same thing?

Good deeds
Matt 5:16 "In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven." (NIV)

Matt 6:3-4 "But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you." (NIV)

In Mt 5, Jesus is speaking in the context of being the salt of the earth. It is by allowing Christ to work through us that people will be drawn to Him. That is, one does good works to glorify God. In Mt 6, Jesus is talking about doing good works in a self-righteous sense, where one draws attention to self. Consider a very practical example: a Christian who serves by feeding the poor ought to do so humbly and quietly. They will eventually be noticed, if only by those they serve. The same Christian shouldn't be bragging about his work among acquaintances, where a "holier-than-thou" sense is evident. The former approach draws people to God, the latter repels them. It isn't a contradiction it is specific. They use Matthew 5:16 verse 15 is Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house. 16 In that same way....
So we are not to boast about our good deeds but neither do we hide them. It is specific about how we conduct ourselves not contradictory.

For or against?
MAT 12:30 He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.
(default is against)

MAR 9:40 For he that is not against us is on our part.
(default is for)

LUK 9:50 And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.
(default is for)

Matthew 12 is exactly right. The examples given in mark and Luke are talking about the same specific person. The disciples thought that a man might be evil because he was doing miracles in Jesus name, but wouldn't come with the disciples they were worried he might be somehow working against them. Jesus explained to them that he was not against them. When the verse quoted says “he” it is not talking in a general sense but about this one guy. Who was a follower of Christ. Luke 9:50 is the exact same story.

Most of these contradictions have nothing to do with doctrine they are atheist grasping at straws. A few warrant additional understanding, but as it always is with supposed contradictions or hard to understand concepts right behind them is a lesson an important one about the nature of God and our existence. Let me know if any further questions that need answers in your mind. After this I won't be responding to any more copy paste arguments from anyone unless they are something they actually took the time to look into for themselves.