Noah's flood
Alright, let's stop there for a second. There is strong evidence (archaeological and biblical) that the flood was a localized flood. People assume it was worldwide, but it wasn't. This is also an incorrect translation by earlier people. Did the people who WROTE about the flood even know of another continent? Also, the verbiage in several passages suggest a local flood. Peter qualifies the word (and I might spell these wrong since it's been a long time) cosmos with tote. If he were talking about the world as a whole, he wouldn't use that qualifier. The qualifier implies the world to them, not the entire planet.
firmament
Okay so this is yet another mistranslation. Lot's of people don't understand this. Look down at the original hebrew word on that wikipedia page.
It is derived from the root raqqəʿ (רָקַע), meaning "to beat or spread out thinly"
Now, this only makes sense if you know what our planet was like in it's early stages of life. When the earth was younger, it was first very much like Venus. Venus has an extremely thick gaseous atmosphere. Ours however was so thick and dense it is theorized there was 0 light penetrating down to the surface. If you look at another creation account, namely the one from Job 37, 38, and 39... There is a verse that says, "when I made the clouds its garment and wrapped it in thick darkness" this is referring to the thick gaseous atmosphere that God eventually spread thin enough for light to reach the surface. Presumably done so via vegetation he created on the surface.
They have some agreements but also, they have descriptions that are mutually exclusive (like the order of appearances)
Actually, the vast majority of are in agreement. Almost to 100%. Which is so insanely remarkable it is known as the synoptic problem. This problem has been described as "the most fascinating literary enigma of all time". The only logical theory people can come up with is that there had to have been a 4th source of information. Some "Q" source. They are assuming this because they think the entire story is a lie. When if this was ANY other historical document regarding ANY other event, they would just assume it's authenticity because of multiple sources.
Now about the disagreements, this covers my view on them pretty similarly. Plus I don't think they actually conflict in most places people think they do. For instance, the third row down describes an angel rolling away the stone via an earthquake. If you read the other accounts compared with that one, it is probably describing an event in between when the girls went to the tomb and before they arrived. So order of events would be walk to tomb, ask who will roll away stone, angel rolls away the stone before they get there, they show up and see stone is gone. Other examples, John says mary went to the tomb. It doesn't say she went alone. The other stories describe multiple girls going. We could go on about this, but I think it really is focusing on the smallest of things to try and prove the bible is mullarky.
If you think the bible is really 100% literal, try reading Song of Solomon (or Song of Songs).
This is still 100% literal. In meaning, it is literally 100% a poem. It isn't recounting events lol. I mean let's bring up revelation while we are at it. Revelation is LITERALLY a retelling of visions someone had. It would be like me retelling you about my dream where I shot lasers out of my hands and flew through space. Of course that doesn't make much sense, but I am telling you literally exactly what I saw and what happened in my dream. The song of songs is literally a poem. Context is key.