Explain away? What is there to justify in rejecting the esigetical interpretation of an ancient text based on nothing but the anachronistic importation of a foreign definition of a word?
Seat yourself comfortably because there are about 1500 to 2000 more of them for you to work with if you're interested.
Well, if you have found that many alleged errors it sounds as if you might be reading the text more with a motive of finding its 'errors' than for it's ethical and moral precepts. I'll bet with that many errors and mistakes you'd be bound to think there would be some in the ethical and moral realm of Scripture, too, wouldn't you?
The bible is a man made document. It is full of the kinds of errors people make. It is no less valuable as an ethical and moral guide because of these errors and mistakes but it is worthless as a biology text.
If the Bible were merely a man-made document (as opposed to divinely inspired via human agency) then it wouldn't even have that right either because it countless times refers to itself as the very Word of God, theopneustos . If its human authors are liars in their numerous claims regarding the nature and authority of their writings then they are worthless as ethical and moral guides.
Cordially,
Until you can make the logical distinction between lies (your second unfounded claim of such things) and errors, a reasonable discussion is impossible