I remember sitting in my Bible class during high school and one day asking the teacher why Acts 1 and Matthew 27 have different depictions of Judas' death. Acts says Judas took the money he got for his treachery and bought a field where he fell headlong and spilled out his guts, which is why it is called the Field of Blood. Matthew says he threw his money at the feet of the priests in remorse and went outside and hung himself. The priests decided they couldn't keep the money because it's blood money so they bought a field (which became a cemetery) and it was called the Field of Blood because it was bought with blood money.
The answer I got was "Judas probably hung himself over a cliff and then fell off and spilled his guts on the field below." Is this the most probable of answers? Is it not more reasonable to simply conclude that the authors heard different things about Judas' death? In the pursuit of infallibility, the Christian will accept any explanation of contradiction, historical inaccuracy or scientific inaccuracy; the fact that one can come up with an explanation is enough to satisfy such a Christian when it comes to the Bible.
But I was not satisfied. Many of you were not satisfied with the answers you received to such questions and that is why we are here. We will not, must not accept anything but the most probable of explanations for the various questions we face in life. To do less is cheat ourselves and society of our ability to think, to pursue truth. If the chain is only as strong as the weakest link, and we have people who believe that a man literally multiplied a few loaves of bread and a handful of fish to feed 5000 people (or 4000 depending on which gospel you read), where does that leave us?