"Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." Matthew 7:13-14

"I think it [the Bible] does have some contradictions... for example, in Matthew 27:5, Judas threw down the pieces of silver in the temple. He departed and then he went and hanged himself. But in Acts of the Apostles 1:18, Judas kept the silver and purchased a field with it. He went into it and falling headlong he burst open and all his bowels gushed out. Either he didn't keep the silver or he kept the silver; either he hanged himself or he didn't hang himself and died in a field being disemboweled. If you take it literally, then you have to believe both accounts, but obviously both accounts can't be correct..."
-Evolutionist Dr. Mark Hartman, anthropology professor, stated publically during creation/evolution debate; [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugxQ4XJb5cQ]

Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, Saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood. And they said, What is that to us? see thou to that. And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.
-Matthew 27:4-6

...concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus. For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry. 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.
-Acts 1:16-18

There are two parts of this that are claimed to be contradictory, the purchasing of the field and the way Judas died, and we will start with the money. In Matthew, Judas threw money down in the temple and, if we keep reading, the priests of the temple bought a field with the money. Notice how they never accepted the money because it was unlawful for them to accept blood money. So did the priests purchase the field? No, they made the transaction.

If I were a wealthy man and gave a realter $10,000 to buy a plot of land, the realter makes the transaction for me, but I am the one purchasing the land because the purchasing power is given to the owner of the wealth. Even with theives who steal credit card information and make purchases, the responsibility for the purchase is given to the person who owns the credit card, not to the theif who made the transaction. (That's why you have to shutdown a bank account if you have your card stolen.) The priests put the transaction through, but it was Judas's money, so the field belonged to Judas. So did Judas purchase the field? Yes. If it was a sin to take blood money as a donation, it would be a sin to give that blood money to someone else to commit sin, so it made sense to use the money to purchase a cemetary plot for public use, but the ownership of the field went to Judas because it was his money.

Some may argue that he relinquished ownership of that money by throwing it down in the temple, but not physically holding something does not relinquish ownership, and not wanting something does not relinquish ownership either. Ever seen one of those strange movies with a crazy parent who doesn't want their baby, so the parent goes to a public place and asks a complete stranger to hold the child for a moment while they run an errand, but the parent never comes back? Because the child was left by the parent, does that mean the stranger automatically claims ownership and parental title? Of course not, and that's just common sense. To give up ownership of an object like money, either it must be destroyed, or there must be someone else to claim it. If I left five dollars on a table at a restaurant, but no one is willing to pick it up or destroy it, it still belongs to me, and I can come back and claim it any time. Ownership is only transfered when first, someone gives up ownership, and second, someone else claims ownership of the object, and in the case of Matthew 27, no one accepted the money, so it still belonged to Judas.

Moving on to Judas's death, Matthew 27 tells us how Judas died, but Acts 1 does not say that his falling headlong is how he died. Acts 1 is a description of what happened AFTER Judas hanged himself. So we know for certain that he hanged himself, but he would not have remained there very long due to the law given by God in Deuteronomy:

And if a man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he be to be put to death, and thou hang him on a tree: His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day; (for he that is hanged is accursed of God;) that thy land be not defiled, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.
-Deuteronomy 21:22-23

So we know they had to get Judas's body by sundown, but the Bible is not clear on who took him down. It is possible, based on the level of detail in Acts 1, that the disciples took him down themselves. (Even though Judas sold out Christ for money, he was still their friend.) Nonetheless, Judas had to be taken down from where he was hanging, and that leaves a few possible options:

• Judas may have been hanging from a tree. The tree branch could have broken.
• Concerning the head first fall, his feet/legs could have hit a log or large rock underneath him and forced his body to fall headlong.
• Someone cutting Judas down could have been holding his feet, and he ended up falling head first.
• His belly could have burst open from hitting something on the way down.
• His belly may have been God's curse to burst open.

The bottom line is that we don't know becasue the Bible does not give us enough detail to know, but those Bible-scoffers who claim a contradition here do so only pure ASSUMPTION because they have a worldview that needs the Bible to have contradictions, and they will take anything they can get to say the Bible is wrong.

The Bible-scoffing worldview will only select an option that will allow them to believe the God of the Bible does not exist (or to make up a false god that doesn't have authority over their lives to makes them feel better), and therefore they think they will not be held accountable for their sin. That's what it really comes down to when you boil away the fancy phrasing. People love the lusts of their flesh, and they do not want to believe in the true living God that will judge their sin. (2Pet 3:3)

There is no contradiction to be found for Judas. Matthew 27 tells us what Judas did, and Acts 1 goes back and gives us more details. It is two accounts of the same event, both giving different details. Contradictions in the King James Bible will only be claimed by those who have no interest in finding the truth, and push many questions without also providing the answers.

Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith:
-1 Timothy 1:4

But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:
-1 Peter 3:15

🔍