So in other words, you only want to talk about the parts that
you believe are correct and impressive, yet wish to keep completely silent and ignore all the parts where it is obviously wrong - and not just a bit wrong, but like extremely doofus-style wrong?
How.... unsurprising.
In any case, you kind of said it yourself: if a mistake can't be smeared out to say something about the bible
in general, then you can't do the same for things that turn out correct.
In other words, in the end, each individual claim in the bible falls or stands on its own merrits.
Meaning that any fullfilled prophecy about anything (I'll bend over backwards for a second and pretend that such prophecies exist, but they don't obviously), isn't going to have any impact on the credibility of
all other claims.
If the bible getting PI wrong doesn't mean that jesus didn't died for our sin, then guess what... then getting something,
anything, correct, isn't going to mean that jesus
did died for our sins either.
If getting PI wrong
only means that it got Pi wrong.
Then getting X right
only means that it got X right.
In fact, establishing that it got X right, whatever X is, also doesn't tell you HOW it got X right.
All it tells you, is that it got X right. You still don't know how or why.
Funny how the very logic that you use to argue your case, also works against you, ha?
Logic is a two-way street off course.....