If some parts of the Bible can't be trusted how can any of it?

Is that even in doubt? I'm not exactly up on the latest thought in Biblical exegesis, but even when I was a pup in Catholic school, it was obvious that "in His image" didn't mean that God was about 6' and possessed of a navel and genitalia.I don't understand how a person of any intelligence could read that and come to the conclusion that the Genesis writer meant that God is the exact shape and form of a person. I mean, on one hand you have a brilliantly poetic way of describing how the human faculty for introspection and insight is like Gods, and on the other, you have a really stupid insistance that God has a body like a person, down to what's under the fig leaf. That's a hardly Christlike position for them to take, don't you think? If they get all up in your face, remind them that Jesus spent more time with prostitutes and tax collectors than he did with the righteous. Christ ministered by getting to know people, by getting into their lives and seeing from their perspective. Surely there can't be anything wrong with following suit?

None of the theory is supposed to be trusted.On the other hand, all of the theory is supported by evidence.

Which Bible is the Word of God? How do you know? Do you have a Bible from way back then?

How can they be the Word of God if they're translations?What were they before they were translated? But which one?

I thought that was supposed to happen, though. How can that be a bad thing? It's the source of all our salvation or whatever, isn't it?How can you fault Israel for doing what it took to guarantee salvation for all persons forever?

How does it make sense for this prophecy to be based on a calendar rooted in the false assumption that Jesus was born in 1 AD?By definition this is a prophecy that can only be understood after the fact, or at the very earliest, after the establishment of the Gregorian calender. Did you do this math before you posted it? The result of your equation is 1985, not 1948. (Remember too that you have to add one year - there's no Year 0. Fencepost error, you see.)

No, you misunderstood my objection.All your dates are based on the Gregorian calendar, which erroneously dates Jesus's birth at 1 AD. How can we be expected to believe that God's prophecy would be based on a calendar rooted in falsehood?You're getting a date of 1948, but nobody who didn't know Israel was founded in 1948 would have gotten this date. Maybe, but that's not how long a year is. A Year is 365.24 days. Why would God base his prophecy on an erroneous year length? That works out better, but why did you post an erroneous equation in the first place?