just to be clear here, Gnosticism is in direct opposition to Christianity. Its a luciferian doctrine, from a Biblical perspective.
Tokezu, ill get with you later. but yes, lots of literal-ness. youd have to be more specific with which parts, but I don't view everything as an allegory. most contradictions that people perceive are derived from a lack of understanding about the old covenant and the new covenant. IMO there are no contradictions and no hypocrisy mostly a lack of understanding. There are also no unfulfilled prophecies in the Bible (some haven't taken place yet) and plenty of folks that have set out to 'disprove' the Bible, have ended up Christians as a result. Its a pretty complex book with a simple message.
I think the differing creation stories we are offered right at the start are a pretty good example. While in the first one, God (Elohim) creates in a rather abstract way, through his 'word', in the second one God (this time under the name JHWH, differing names even... interesting huh?) is seen as more of a craftsman, making some kind of statues from earth and then breathing life into them. In the first one there is a clear emphasis on a hierarchical order, man is the pinnacle of creation and everything is given to him to rule over it. The second one places less emphasis on the order in which things occured (but apparently man comes first) and man is not so much a ruler, but a caretaker of nature.
This is starting to make a little more sense when you look at this with the question of "Who is writing what at which time?" The first creation story is thought to be part of the priestly tradition, which has probably originated at the time of the babylonian exile where they were witnessing a complex hierarchical society, a ruler who rules with words (codified law) etc., while the second one is thought to be part of the jahwistic tradition which is a fair bit older and much more influenced by the lifestyle of peasants and nomadic pastoralists.
But the real interesting thing here, I think, is that the redactors of the Torah put these two traditions right next to each other, without editing it into one nice coherent story. Why? Didn't they want to make up their mind at the first draft, thinking "Well, we'll come to these inconsistencies later." and then forgot all about it? I find that hard to believe. I think it is much more plausible, that they were well aware how much the context in which people were living influenced their image of God and the creation and because of that they left a pretty obvious hint that all stories that humans tell about God are at best a close approximation and should not be confused with any kind of objective truth.
But if you prefer to believe in the divine inspiration of the biblical text, I understand that this interpretation wouldn't make sense to you. But then... why would God leave us these weird riddles in the text? That sounds a bit like people claiming God put dinosaur fossils in the ground with the intent to confuse us about the age of the earth. Sounds a little contrived to me tbh. But please understand that I'm not trying to make fun of your beliefs. If those beliefs make you happy and aren't used as an excuse to hurt other people that is fine by me.
Edit:
Not to be too snarky, but I think "hasn't taken place yet" is pretty much the definition of an unfulfilled prophecy.
