Without going into a litany of examples, surely even devout Christians understand that large portions of the Bible are difficult to match to reality/science/etc.
(That instruction probably didn't happen, since two chapters later David's raiding the Amalekites just as if they weren't exterminated at all; but if it did happen, well, I wonder who Saul was talking to. The Devil likes to pass himself off as an angel of light; the test of an interaction with a supernatural being is what the said being asks you to do.)
And if you really want to embarrass a fundamentalist, talk about how you're a Creationist, and then start talking about the second Creation narrative -- the one that begins with "the spirit of God moving over the waters". Or talk about how you want to put the Ten Commandments on the courthouse lawn, and then reveal that you mean the Ritual Commandments (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ritual_Decalogue). Or read the Books of Samuel, which are obviously two different narratives (with quite different outlooks on life) interleaved with each other...
[1] https://sites.google.com/site/shkrobius/inthebeginning....
I really didn't want to get into a point-for-point thing, but the "day" is just one issue. Birds and whales (great sea monsters) precede reptiles and insects, grass precedes light, etc. The Ark, and other stories, have similar issues that are hard to wave away.
What's the problem?
> grass precedes light
verse 3: And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.
verse 11: Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation . . . "
Really?
> verse 3: And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.
What are verses 14-17 about, then?
Edit: For clarity...
a) Birds preceding reptiles and insects seems obviously flawed.
b) Verse 3 "Let there be light" would almost have to correlate with the big bang...light somewhere, but not on the earth. Verses 14-17 seem clearly to be about the sun being created. Created millions of years after the grass (and other things that need light?), if we take the notion that "days" aren't literal, and are meant to match what we've seen in science.
This has the verses laid out in a way that's easy to follow: http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Genesis-Chapter-1/
If one tries to nitpick on every little detail in the Scriptures, they will have a lot of occasions to do so. It is quite easy to find apparent contradictions by interpreting the Bible in a way that is suited to your goal. It is not, however, a proof that the Bible contradicts itself, as it relies on a specific interpretation. When it come to religious matters, very few things can be proven or disproven.
The way I see it, Christian faith is about being humble. You can't find God if you read the Bible with a self-righteous, know-it-all attitude, trying to disprove it line by line. I found this[1] page to explain this point of view quite well.
You cannot apply the principles of science to metaphysical matters, because science concerns itself purely with the physical, tangible world, and has no answers to offer regarding its origins, its meaning, etc. Science and faith do not contradict each other; rather, they complement each other. I like to think of myself as a highly rational individual; mathematics and programming, for example, delight me. Yet I have no issue believing that the Bible is true, and that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is the creator of the Universe. Does that make me a fool? In the eyes of some, yes. Is it possible to be cognitively biased in a specific area yet highly rational in others? Absolutely. But to say that reason precludes faith is simply incorrect.
[1]: http://www.christiananswers.net/q-comfort/contradictions-bib...
How about logical impossibilities and contradictions? Can God create copies of himself, or split himself into multiple aspects, such as into the Greek gods? If not, then God must be limited to logical possibilities. If yes, then any and all explanations are equally valid, so God is literally meaningless.
> science concerns itself purely with the physical, tangible world
That's not even remotely true. Physics constantly plays with metaphysical models, and it keeps the ones with explanatory power that can be mapped to observable phenomena.
> I like to think of myself as a highly rational individual
There's an alternative explanation here somewhere, but my highly irrational mind is having a hard time seeing the truth.