[Terriergal]

The Judas example is but one of many conflicts.

uhh... there is no conflict with Judas. A body hanging on a tree (and no one was going to touch him according to the law) and rotting until it starts bloating is going to have its guts spewed all over when it falls. Next?

People who merely dabble in the Bible often think there are conflicts. That's why you're supposed to study it daily, and pray for discernment... and don't buy one of the newer translations that fudge on meaning. I recommend the ASV (1901) edition, but it's hard to find. NASB is good, some people say "King James Only" but you end up going back to the greek and hebrew anyway to figure out what it meant. ASV is more literal but can be hard to read sometimes because of that. KJV is more poetic. IMHO.

[joesbucks]

Thank you for your reply.

But again, like an activist judge, you're adding something that is not written in scripture.

It doesn't say the body rotted. And besides, if it did, it wouldn't fall headfirst as described in Acts.

In addition the version in Acts states "Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity". Judas threw the 30 pieces of silver back at the priests in Matthew. Yet with the same money, "he" purchased a field. Not the priests. Judas.

[the-ironically-named-proverbs2]

"People who merely dabble in the Bible often think there are conflicts. That's why you're supposed to study it daily, and pray for discernment... and don't buy one of the newer translations that fudge on meaning. I recommend the ASV (1901) edition, but it's hard to find. NASB is good, some people say "King James Only" but you end up going back to the greek and hebrew anyway to figure out what it meant. ASV is more literal but can be hard to read sometimes because of that. KJV is more poetic. IMHO."

worth repeating, thanks.