Difference of Opinion

Presently, my life is pretty mundane. I go to school, do homework--that's about it. Last night, however, was more exciting.

After sitting in History and listening to my teacher describe all the sexual implications in the Bible, I felt ready and properly armed for some serious religious debate. My one friend seemed like the perfect candidate, for he is a very religious person. Don't get me wrong, I'm also a Christian, but unlike him I do not believe that the Bible is a consummate text that contains no flaws or contradictions. My view is that it was written by humans, and is thus flawed as we are.
I first asked him about the differences in the creation story between the first and second chapters of Genesis. In chapter one, the author claims that men and women were created at the same time. In the following chapter, however, it is said that Eve was created after Adam to be his "helper". This suggests the superiority of men over women, and is thus a very important contradiction of the text that cannot be easily overlooked.
His view is that the second chapter is not in chronological order and is meant to elaborate on what was said previously. However, it clearly states that man was created before the animals, which were in turn created before Eve, in Genesis two. There is ambiguity in the text, as my friend pointed out, but the fact remains that his interpretation would take more imagination and distortion of the actual words, while mine is far more obvious from the text itself. In fact, I don't have interpretation of the text except for the fact that it is flawed in this section.
Next we discussed the discrepancies between God commanding Noah to gather one pair of every animal before the great flood, and his later command to gather seven pairs of all the "clean" animals. Sure, this could also be an elaboration on His earlier statement (as my friend declared), but from going on what the text says alone there appears to be distinct differences that suggest the disagreement between the various authors of this book.
At this point, I was obviously irking my friend who lashed out at me, believing that I wouldn't consider his points in the debate. "Why must you question God's word? Why must you always be right?" he asked. I told him that I HAD considered his points, and that mine were simply...better. By better, I mean that I had more textual support that took less imagination to clearly explain.
Later on, I asked my friend about the numerous references (in Genesis one, Psalm 82, etc.) in the Bible to there being more than one god. It is my belief that there are other gods, and they simply do not concern us since our God is still the one who created us and watches over us. He, of course, argued against this saying that those other gods may refer to angels instead. If God is omnipotent and omniscient, he would surely not allows such gods to exist. Again, this suggestion is possible but not plausible according to the text that clearly states "gods". Even if it is poorly translated from the original Hebrew, there are blatant differences between the Hebrew words for "angels" and "gods".
Unfortunately, my friend will not waver in the belief that the Bible is a "perfect" book. With all the discrepancies I pointed out, it simply cannot be perfect. The stories are meant to teach lessons and outline a faith, but not to be taken literally, word-for-word. The fact that my friend and I had this discussion to begin with also conveys its imperfection. If it were completely perfect, it would not be ambiguous and there could be only one possible interpretation of each verse. That is my belief and I'm standing by it.

So, as one can see, not every night is boring. However, I still wish that I did not have to rely on Biblical debates for my entertainment. =]

This is a humorous clip of Homer Simpson being sacrilegious, as my friend may think of me: