This is your evident that the Bible is in error? Classification of animals is a manmade invention based upon some criteria. The criteria used back then was different than it is today. Consider what Aristotle states about the bat:
You cannot make a case of the Bible being in error simply based upon some way people classified animals back then. The writers simply used the current definition of the day.
Evident or not, it is in the Bible, so it must be true, right?1 Now you are using man-made classification and knowledge as being outside of the realm of biblical infallibility? I would say you are making progress, even if you don't see it or admit it. But, isn't there something like "the Holy Spirit would not allow error..." that would prevent such follies? Apparently, that is not the Holy Spirit's concern; the spiritual message is.
So, what am I to get from your reply? That now we need an up-to-date study guide to tell us which is man-made folly and which is God's honest truth in the Bible?
More importantly, then, we can't look at anything in the Bible as it appears to us, such as jo kus's pointed about the Flood involving only the known world and not the whole world.
Consider what Aristotle states about the bat: "...a little bird which flies in the night"
Aristotle? Who cares what follies Aristotle said? He was not inspired! Now you are mixing apples and oranges, HD, to defend another folly at all cost. We are not talking about pagan Greek philosophers; they were rationalists. Faith is not reason; faith based on reason is rationalism. It changes as we learn more facts.
Aristotle, by the way, is well known as an example that rationalism, especially common-sense type, leads to follies and never to truth. At best, it gives an appearance of truth, having some elements of truth in them, but never the whole truth.
It was Aristotle who "explained" why things fall on earth (i.e. gravity). He said things fall towards the center; ergo we must be in the center (of the Universe). Hey, "it makes sense" doesn't it?
Ptolemy, on the other hand used scientific method of observation to construct a mathematical model of predicting where celestial bodies would be. Thus he created one of the first reliable navigational tools that can be used to this day. It is based on the premise that the earth stands still, and the "heavens" rotate around us -- and we know that is not true any longer, don't we HD! So why does it still work?
The reason it works is because science makes working models, even if they are based on false premises. Just because something works doesn't mean it's true. Something many people don't realize. Plain fact is, both Aristotle and Ptolemy used our reason and our perception of things as the measure of truth, which is what we do to this day.
There is nothing wrong with it, as long as realize that reason can give us working models but never the whole truth. Which is why factual truth can never be used as a measure of truth, just as man can never be used as a measure of humanity. The only measure of true humanity is Christ. The more we attain His likeness, the closer we get to our created (true) nature form which we fell.
The Church, believing the Scriptures, holds that man is God's central creation. Having Aristotelian philosophy "explain" that we are at the center because things fall on earth, and having a working scientific model based on earth being a center, it is easy to see how the Old World geocentric order became an impenetrable belief, mixing man's limited knowledge with Biblical spiritual truth as being in perfect harmony based on faith and reason.
After all, we had philosophy, mathematics and religion all coming together, independently, to the same conclusion. How could that possibly be wrong? Well, today we know that it is. Why? Because it was a belief corrupted with reason, a spiritual truth conformed to man's limited knowledge, faith enslaved with factual "proof" and subjected to logic and philosophy.
Which is why I said that historical, factual and other knowledge limited to man's education, time and location on this earth, is irrelevant when it comes to the Bible. The Bible can be understood even by those who do not have education, provided they have a gift of being able to see love in all of it. I admit, I am not one of them and I have yet to be given something more than "trust me it's in there" and an answer to those "difficult" passages.
I believe with all my heart that the spiritual message in the Bible is inerrant. A loving world would indeed be a Paradise. If we all acted in the likeness of Christ, the world would be a different place. I am convicted of that.
But I will not wager that every "i" and "t" in the Scripture is the whole truth because, as you have admitted, it is dependent on "manmade criteria" of the time.
You have also (as you always do) conveniently ignored the fact that I said I would limit my examples to Leviticus only and that there are tons of similar "manmade criteria" that show beyond any doubt that there are things in the Bible that are factually wrong, whether they involve numbers, "manmade criteria," what have you.
When we read the Bible we need to concentrate only on the spiritual and not anecdotal aspects of it, taking the latter with a grain of salt and concentrating on the spiritual truth that is expressed in it; the morality of its stories. We should never read into the biblical events as if they really happened that way, or whether they really happened or not, but in context of the intended message they carry.
However, if there are factual errors (errors of math, for example) that means there are errors in that Book. If there are errors in fact, we must qualify biblical inerrancy in terms of the spiritual, and accept factual statements as subject to error. Otherwise, we will be creating another Ptolemaic folly.
________
1I once heard a Russian colleague of mine say "It mAHst be tRue; it's in the kompYUtor." It struck me as funny and I saw a parallel to some people's belief that everything in the Bible, no matter what version, must be true. The fact is, the computer is always true -- we get back what we put into it. So, if we get what we don't want it's still true, because even a lie is the truth, although we don't want to accept it as such.