It’s not an internally logically consistent body of work. Doesn’t need to be for its purposes. Through most of Christian history, Bible stories were read as allegories not thought experiments in an analytical philosophy book.
if you go through different theologies you’ll find explanations for all of those things that ties them together in ways that work for the concept they’re using it to support.
It changed with the Calvinists though who were part of the Age of Reason. The branches that followed the Calvinists are easy to defeat with chapter/verse conflicts. But the branches that did not follow the Calvinists usually roll their eyes at inconsistencies because they know they’re there and it’s ok.
The groups you’d be able to convince with a meme like this would likely be in one of these common groups:
Primitive Baptist or Reformed Baptist Churches
Also, the “roll your own” churches without any denominational basis will be easy to convince because they treat the bible as a legal textbook, which is not how to use it.
I’m agnostic now but I was raised Methodist. We weren’t from the Calvinist line of thinking. So, we’d consider arguments like yours “logic tricks”. They impress the Calvinist branches but not the non-Calvinist branches.
The Bible is seen as a supporting document of a greater body (Church), rather than the center masterpiece.
To those groups that are “Bible only” though, they can be decimmated by argumentation lke yours.
Apologetics were primarily used in the Latin church, medieval times and beyond. The Eastern churches did not use much apologetics. They had the “Great Schism” by then.
Medieval apologetics is what led to the kind of thinking that led to Calvinism and to the Age of Reason, and Calvinistic (orderly logical Universe that’s consistent) thinking along with Age of Reason thinking, eventually led to the modern Scientific Methods and to modern Philosophy.