Well, sure. But presumably since he didn't say anything else it can be assumed that he's implying I'm a whiner and therefore my argument is false? I'm not really too concerned if it is or isn't ad hominem, but it is suspiciously close.
If you wanted to call it an appeal to ridicule..you'd have at least a leg to stand on.
Except that summary is essentially what you did. If you wanted to defuse it, you could do so by addressing the essence of the problem, rather than, once again, evading and leading the whole conversation into a rabbit hole of semantics. If you show the ridicule to be unfounded, it makes the person doing the ridicule no longer with a point.
The issue of your position:
I see no flaws in X. X is therefore flawless or has extremely limited flaws. Don't bother me with actual flaws in X.
I do not hold X to any different standard than Y
Y contradicts X
is not tenable, nor logical. Your premise is falsified by the fact that X, in this case the Bible, is absolutely riddled with flaws. I did not want to hear the age old cry "You mean atheist just picked these two flaws" and to avoid this, I did so by providing a substantive list. I could have easily provided a list twenty times as long.
If you do not agree with the way I state your position, provide details of how I did so. Details that a person defending the accuracy of, lets say, The Iliad, could not use.