On the subject of the bible being infallible.. I still remember once example.
I've seen a account(evid3nc3 from youtube) to be exact, who read the bible assuming it was inerrant, but stumbled on the death of Judas.
Matthew 27:1-1: Did he get the reward , but got consumed by guilt, and he hung himself. The silver was used to bury him on a field, that's why that field was called the '' field of blood '' ?
Acts 1:18 or: did he buy the field himself with the silver, fell,his intestines bursting out, the gruesome death being heard in all of jeruzalem, and naming the field the ''field of blood'' because of this?
I've seem attempts to reconcile this, but the different uses of the silver, the orgin of the naming of the field of blood, and the lack of any reason why the two authors would each omit crucial details the other gives? I fail to see how this is not a contradiction, and it's very much supposed to be a reliable account by both authors.