> Besides that, there are many instances of twisted logic that Christians use to justify certain beliefs that are, rather obviously to me, not the correct interpretation or even a *good* interpretation.
>
> For instance, the old question of how did Judas die? Matthew says he hanged himself. Acts says he fell down in a field or something.

If we're looking at interpretation, we can't just stop at apparent contradiction. Look at that Acts account again: people don't exactly burst open when they just fall down. In fact, they usually only do that when they are already dead. Note the immediate context--Luke is telling how the 'Field of Blood' got its name, connecting the event to something people could go and see and verify for themselves. That weird-sounding interpretation isn't nearly so far-fetched as it sounds when mentioned in isolation.

Broadening the context a bit, Luke was talking about the replacement of Judas. He deals with the Judas' circumstances very tersely, because it doesn't have anything to do with his point. Mentioning the priests would require a useless diversion. That is, he simplified. Matthew makes an actual story out of it. Good interpretation uses the clear passages to interpret the ambiguous passages. Thus, the odd-sounding but good interpretation of Judas' death and subsequent decay. Luke's condensed explanation in Acts actually helps make more sense of Matthew's explanation of the naming of the 'Field of Blood,' as he didn't do a great job of it.

In short, they don't contradict, or even truly appear to. Rather, they complement each other. In shorter, context is king.

Not that there'd be a big problem with these facts being wrong; other, obscurer passages do seem to me to contradict. They really have no impact on the message or purpose of the letters they are found in. A great many specific facts and events DO matter, but the contradictions and errors are confined to minutia. [I've been taught largely from the viewpoint of theological inerrancy. I see no requirement for God to supply information that is irrelevant to his purposes.]

gab"but is it PROXIMATE?"by