Quote: Bible-believers seem to think that any loophole, however improbable, that gets the Bible off the hook has solved the problem.
Oh how I know. It seems the most common one I've seen is the "lost in translation" defense where they claim that this or that word or phrase had two definitions, but for some reason the common definition isn't the one intended, but the convoluted one which doesn't make the bible wrong or embarrassing.
For example, if someone brings up Jesus talking about slaves, I would claim "When the bible was translated, the word for 'slave' had two meanings, one being a person owned by another person, and the other meaning of 'employed worker.' So when Jesus was talking about how to treat your slaves, he was talking about how employers should treat their employees."
Of course there's never any evidence that there were two different definitions for a particular word, or why one is necessarily more correct than the other.
Christian apologetics is the art of rolling a dog turd in sugar and selling it as a donut.
