Why the "There are so many interpretations of the Bible" claim is confused

[Mudhammam]

what claims of God do you think are contrary to Science.

Setting aside whatever it is you mean by "claims of God", compare the "method" (if it can even be called that) by which you arrive at explanations about phenomena in the world that involve God with those of science. They are antithetical; one requires justification through evidence and falsifiable hypotheses, encourages relentless self-criticism and peer review, includes safeguards against confirmation bias, holds no idea sacred or beyond reproach... the other relies on the poor use of logical argumentation, blind faith in dogmas, and mere intuition that otherwise unexplained phenomena and experiences are sufficient to confirm the truth of non-evident claims. Which one has proven itself to produce veritable knowledge? Which one repeatedly makes predictions to ensure that claims approximate to reality? Which proportions confidence in its accuracy to the clarity and weight of its evidence?