Yes, the Bible isn't a science book, but any good book, science book or not, should not contain scientific errors.
The longer this thread goes on, the more obvious it is that this poster doesn't know the first thing about science. And his zeal against Christianity causes him to make many ridiculous and irrational claims.
He says any good book "should not contain scientific errors".
But how does this poster define "science"?
The poster is apparently unaware that "science" doesn't give us "facts", but rather it tries to give us UNDERSTANDING of how and why things occur. And our scientific UNDERSTANDING of things CHANGES over time as we learn more, and we discover instances which disprove longstanding scientific ideas.
It was once understood that the atom was the smallest particle of matter. Now we know that's not correct.
It was once understood that the Sun and all other celestial bodies orbitted the Earth. Now we know that's not correct.
It was once understood that Newton's Laws of Motion described all motion. Now we know that's not correct.
It was once understood that all matter was visible. We now believe that to be incorrect.
It was once understood that gravity was based on straight line forces between masses. Now we believe it's more complicated than that.
"Science" changes over time.
So when we evaluate books to judge whether they contain "scientific error", which understanding of "science" do we use for this?
There seems to me to be two options:
1) Only the ultimate science discovered at the end of time, can be determined to be accurate, and so EVERY science book or scientist was a "bad science", because what they wrote about ended up being incorrect or flawed in some way. (This seems incredibly unreasonable to me.)
2) We judge every book based on the scientific understanding that was available at the time.
But if you wish to throw out "Principia" as unscientific and therefore "not a good book", I guess you are free to do that.