answer it both ways so I can see the angle your using to outsmart him
Its a tired old tactic being tried on me. The old "bring up a bunch of difficult to explain Bible verses to get the opponent running around in response" trick. There are reasonable answers available for the hard to explain verses and/or the hard to reconcile philosophical tensions in the Bible and Theology. So, I have to put out the provisio of the opponent at least accepting the answers to the first wave of challenge verses they present without adding a second and third wave of challenge verses right after the work is done on the first batch.
Nevertheless, I will make you a deal, though. If there is a verse (or two) in the Bible that has always puzzled you, and you really want to know if there are good explanations, I will be more than happy to make an attempt at response.
But, shy of that, there are plenty of resources on the web that respond to the Bible difficulty challenges.
Also, the foundational moral issue still remains. The challenger is basically saying that the Bible is immoral, or has an immoral representation of God. The question of "Immoral view of God based on what standard of morals?" has to be answered.
What is happening when anyone says that the Bible is of low substance as far as moral representation of God goes, this implies that the Bible could be better in that moral regard. To say that something could be better, implies that there is a Best standard by which to judge things as being less than best, or not as good as something else, etc. There has to be a Best standard (God) in order to have a foundation for stating that something is less than best, could be better, etc.
Relying the Best standard to argue against God (the Best standard) is what Frank Turek calls "Stealing from God" .. which is what the atheist has to do whenever they make universal moral claims about anything.
PS: If you review this entire discussion thread from page one, not one person has properly explained how there can be universal morals apart from the universal moral standard that comes from God. If morals are individually or culturally relative, then the genocides of Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler, Pol Pot, Castro, etc. could not be viewed as morally wrong, but rather them merely having their own relativistic views on morals and each of their subsequent societies falling into collective affirmation of the purported moral benefit of genocide (i.e, the elimination of so called inferior races, classes, etc, for the so called benefit of society).
The Christian worldview allows me (or anyone else for that matter) to have a philosophical foundation for saying that Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler, and the like were wrong and evil in every sense of the term, past, present, and future.