Not a bible expert, but the old testament in particular has books that are effectively 'legal' (rather than theological) in nature. The kind of thing you quote here is likely from that kind of book (and typically the kind of thing quoted in TV shows needing to show how 'silly are the things Christians believe in').
If you put it in that context, then it's not that much sillier than stuff like "Owning a pet lobster in Maine is illegal when that lobster is pregnant" kind of laws. (true law btw)
I would invite you to re-evaluate your position on books like Leviticus not being "theological". For example, Leviticus 16, the Day of Atonement, shows you on so many levels what Christ accomplished. The reasons many of the rules and laws are put into place is to show how reality is structured ontologically. And to show you that mixing categories can be harmful, and that fringes are necessary to keep the rest of the cloth whole. I could go on and on about this.
A good place to start is Language of Creation by Mattieu Pageau and Unseen Realm by Michael Heiser. Nothing in the Bible is there by accident. It all has meaning and connects with the rest of what's there. And the "contradictions" are there on purpose, to draw you in. Think of them like Zen koans that are inviting you into contemplation of what is meant, rather than "oh those ancient people must have missed this one".
I'm not saying the 'legal' books shouldn't be part of the bible because they have 'no theological value'.
I'm saying that when a hollywood actor in a film makes fun of christians and says something like "oh go sacrifice a goat like it says in your bible", they are willfully misrepresenting those verses as "cherry-picking your beliefs and conveniently leaving out the goat stuff", when in fact typically they're quoting verses of legal/historical significance, rather than of a dogmatic/theological nature.
>it's not that much sillier than stuff like "Owning a pet lobster in Maine is illegal when that lobster is pregnant" kind of laws. (true law btw)
I agree about the old testament, but this is only silly when taken out of context. Long before I got into network security I worked in the Maine Lobster industry shoveling bait (which is half-rotten fish mixed with salt, lobsters love it!) into buckets and weighing/storing lobsters at a fisherman's co-op.
An important part of conservation revolves around people putting fertile female lobsters back in the ocean when they are inadvertently caught. Maine puts a lot more effort into conserving them than the surrounding states/countries do (who frequently get caught poaching in Maine waters and keeping lobsters that would be illegal to keep even if they were allowed to fish in Maine.
Yes, this is kinda the point. It's the Chesterton's Fence argument. Before mocking something which appears silly, try to find out the reason it was created in the first place. Maybe there was good reason, maybe that reason still holds, maybe it doesn't.
If you put it in that context, then it's not that much sillier than stuff like "Owning a pet lobster in Maine is illegal when that lobster is pregnant" kind of laws. (true law btw)