On biblical contradictions

In response to a musing I placed on Facebook ("I wonder if certain modern atheists realize the logical and factual errors on which they rely") a friend replied with a reference to this list of biblical contradictions.

The reference has nothing to do with my question, but it makes for interesting reading regarding a different aspect of the atheists' approach, namely a lack of understanding of what Christianity is and what it teaches.

I agree that such a misunderstanding is also due to our doing a poor job of explaining said features of Christianity, mixed with the fact that in our society the most vocal Christians seem to be those who have a very poor intellectual understanding of it. Lots of faith, and God will give them credit for it, but poor understanding.

Still, why do they base their criticisms on what they heard from very
uninformed and confused sources and use that to arrive at conclusions about the whole of Christianity?
I am sure that they would not consider as reasonable to reject, say, chemistry, because what they learned of it from me (I know little about it) seems stupid and unconvincing. They would go to the experts, right?
So, why don't they go to the experts on Christianity as well?

If they went to real experts, they would learn, for instance, that:

1. The Bible is not a book, let alone an instruction book or a scientific book.
2. None of the six "explanations" listed in the article applies to the whole Bible, though all of them are to be considered to properly understand it.
3. The inspired nature of the Bible does NOT mean that God dictated it, contrary to what some fundamentalists claim. How each book of the Bible came to be considered as "Scripture" is itself an interesting thing to discover.
4. The books of the Bible were written by actual people, who lived in an actual society that had an actual culture and actual ways of explaining things that were, surprise!, different from ours.
5. The books of the Bible are individual accounts of events, experiences and thoughts, all related to the story that God is living with us. So, if one looks at the details outside of their purpose (more than context) ...
6. one is missing the whole point of the Bible!

Here are just a couple of examples.
They ask:

Which first--beasts or man?

GEN 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
GEN 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
GEN 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
GEN 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

Ever wondered why there are two accounts of creation? (Not to mention four Gospels) Why say the same thing twice and in different ways? If you think of it as a reporter's account it makes no sense. So they conclude that the Bible makes no sense. But it is not a reporter's account! It makes sense in that it tells us something, and gives us ideas to reflect on, the relationship between God, us and the rest of creation. So, this apparent contradiction is irrelevant.

I wonder if people who read the Bible this way also read, say Harry Potter that way. Do they miss the whole point of that story because they focus on the contradictions it contains? Do they conclude that JK Rowling does not know how many physical laws are violated in Hogwarts? If they do, they miss a lot of the human experience.

Another typical claim they make in the article:

Snakes, while built low, do not eat dirt

GEN 3:14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:

Really! I bet ancient people did not know that! And maybe they had never seen snakes on trees! Or, maybe, this expression meant something else to those people, who were often wiser than us and knew how to use language to express ideas.

And finally an entry that makes me wonder if the list is the result of just ignorance or willful desire to deceive:

Who is the father of Joseph?

MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.

Is somewhere in the list a mention of the disciple who was called sometimes Simon and sometimes Peter? Or the one who was called sometimes Levi, sometimes Matthew? Or the other one who was Saul or Paul? I had two close relatives (my father-in-law and an uncle) who were known by different names with different people. Are they really not aware of this phenomenon?
If I had the time and inclination I could critique each of their objections in a similar way, but other, better people have done that. And I hope that some of these atheists will bother to find out who and what they said.
Just in case you are curious, small minds such as Augustine, Aquinas, Alighieri, Newman, Wojtyla and Ratzinger come to mind. Or you may want to start small and watch the videos by Robert Barron. You will find an interesting one in a previous post (not much to scroll)