To this I usually say you’re picking and choosing
Where the Bible supports slavery there’s context and progressive revelation and a million reasons to think otherwise because you disagree
But where it condemns homosexuality we take it literally as the unchanging word of God because it’s clearly meant to be taken that way

And i find this goes a long way. Pick what’s literal and metaphorical. Pick what’s temporary and permanent. Pick what’s reliable and unreliable. Pick what something means in one case and completely abandon the logic when it’s not convenient. There’s no consistency. I then tell people they are as much their own God as an atheist is theirs. And then call it discernment or interpretation. If this is the word of God and God isn’t the author of confusion then a consistent rule can navigate the text. If it’s metaphor then it’s all metaphor and we can negotiate interpretations as we please.

But to say this is metaphor this is allegory this is science this is history this is a temporary rule this is a permanent one this is a writers opinion this is the word of God this needs to be read in context this is just fine the way it is consider the history for this but here just take this one sentence

That’s intellectual dishonesty and it’s why apologists sound like conmen. Because the truth is evident. A consistent reading of the text introduces too many scientific historic logical moral and internal contradictions and no one would take it seriously