How do Christians (specifically, Biblical literalists) reconcile their belief in the Bible as absolute truth when many aspects of the Bible have been proven to be wrong?
People who believe in a literal six-day creation occuring 6000 years ago must reconcile that information with the facts of Earth being billions of years old. Some have backed away from a literal six-day creation and suggest that "days" refers to larger periods of time, such as eons or epochs. But for those who still hold the Earth to be young, what makes you deny scientific fact?
People who believe in the worldwide flood story of Noah must reconcile this belief with the discovery of areas that show no evidence of water for the past 2 million years, as well as with the lack of any other evidence of a worldwide flood.
Those are the big ones, the big stories. But there are others. In Genesis 30:37-43, it talks about Jacob affecting the colouration of goat offspring by forcing the parent goats to look at sticks of varying colouration. Again, this process is not supported by any known facts and has been entirely disproved through genetics. So, is this story a factual historical account, or a mere fable?
In short, some portions of the Bible are not supported by the facts. Other portions of the Bible are outright contradicted by the facts. So, how much of the Bible is true? Is there any evidence that the Bible is true? I've heard about prophecies made in the Bible; what are those prophecies, and have they been shown to have come true?
**Just to get this out of the way now, saying that the proof that the Bible is true is "because the Bible says it is true" is not a sustainable answer.