I find articles like this tiresome. If you’re arguing against literal interpretation of the Bible as the infallible word of God, then make that argument. There are certainly lots of good ones. But if we remove your set-up at the beginning, then we are left holding a book that is theologically diverse, written by many people over centuries who all had their own different views of who their god was, and largely edited and compiled into something like its present form through the lens of the catastrophic event of Babylonian destruction, exile, and return. This makes it rich and fascinating, not “wrong" or even ugly. There is no “wrong" to a book that was never intended to be a coherent manual on science,theology, or even good ethics. It is meant to be pondered,debated, and learned from. It is a history of the Israelite people and their relationship to their god. There are definitely parts that are examples of how not to be, and the Israelites (not being a homogeneous religion) didn’t always follow their own law, any more than people today do.

But, to return to my main exhaustion, you create a set-up just so you can win your own argument. It’s like saying, “let’s say that all dogs bite,” before debating whether people should own them.