Does the Bible Contradict Itself?

[spockrates]

OOhhhhhh !!! That's a bit of a stretch. These are simply your interpretations and speculations about what the author left in or left out, not what the passages actually say.
Remember the OP asked for contradictory passages, not ones that could not under any circumstances be interpreted to be consistent.

It is your interpretation/speculation that the phrase "And having said thus" means "immediately after he said this". I appealed to other portions of the Bible to find a historical context--since NT authors wrote different than people write now. You appealed to your opinion of how the modern English language should be used, which has little to do with 1st century Greek. "And having said thus" was a common literary phrase. Here are similar examples:
Acts 1:9 "And having said these things he was taken up, they beholding him, and a cloud received him out of their sight."
John 11:28 "And these things having said, she went away, and called Mary her sister privately, saying, 'The Teacher is present, and doth call thee.'"
Luke 19:28 "Having said these things, he went on ahead, going up to Jerusalem."
John 7:9 "Having said these things to them, he stayed in Galilee."
John 20:20 "Having said this he showed them his hands and also his side."
John 13:21 "Having said this, Jesus was troubled in spirit and testified, “Very truly I tell you, one of you is going to betray me.'”
Are any of these immediately after the fact? Or do you suppose Jesus said a few words and something transpired between? Don't let Jesus' death deceive you--his giving up his spirit is no more immediate than any other action of his.
It should be noted that several of these have alternate translations of "After he said this."
Consider John 11:27-28 closer. Martha is talking:

“Yes, Lord,” she replied, “I believe that you are the Messiah, the Son of God, who is to come into the world.”
After she had said this, she went back and called her sister Mary aside. “The Teacher is here,” she said, “and is asking for you.”

Do you believe nothing more was said between Mary's confession and her going back to the house?
Or John 20:19-20:

When therefore it was evening, on that day, the first day of the week, and when the doors were locked where the disciples were assembled, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in the midst, and said to them, "Peace be to you." When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. The disciples therefore were glad when they saw the Lord.
However, Luke (24:38) records Jesus saying "Why are you troubled? Why do doubts arise in your hearts? See my hands and my feet, that it is truly me. Touch me and see, for a spirit doesn't have flesh and bones, as you see that I have."

Is it not logical for Jesus to have announced his intentions before showing his wounds? A quick browse through a concordance would confirm to you the subjectivity of time in our verses in question.

I'd say that you both make a good point, and either of you might be correct. The texts are simply too ambiguous to say either way. Perhaps you should both agree to disagree on this one?