There are multiple ways unbelievers can attempt to charge the Bible with scientific error. Sometimes, they accurately interpret the Bible, but compare it to a "scientific fact" that is, in fact, not scientifically factual. The obvious example here would be Evolution, which, while it is commonly claimed to be a scientific fact, is in fact a historical myth. Other times, the science is sound, but the interpretation of Scripture is not. The Bible does not describe a flat earth, for example, nor was it historically understood to do so. Nor does it say the sun is literally in the sky.
The third way to make Scripture seem scientifically illiterate, however, is to use subjective terminology in an objective way. Is a bat a bird? The Bible, at least in English, seems to say so. In reality, however, the Bible doesn't say bats are birds, but "owph", meaning "owner of a wing". In the same way, Scripture claims that some insects have four legs. What critics won't tell you, however, is that the Israelites classified limbs according to function. Thus, insects that have six legs, two of which are used for a separate function, are classified in Scripture as having only four legs, not because they genuinely have only four limbs, but because two of those limbs are used for jumping (grasshoppers and crickets), or smelling (brush-footed butterflies), or grabbing prey (mantids) etc. The distinction in function, in Scripture, warrants separate classification. We could add the additional note here that, given this is all talking about what the Israelites can and can't eat, they would have easily been able to spot the error if, indeed, it existed. It's not hard to count the legs on a creature you're about to cut up and shove in your mouth.
What we see, then, isn't a case of the Bible's authors having a skewed view of reality, but rather, they describe the same reality in a different way. There are actually many equivalents even within science. For example, take aluminum and aluminium. While not radically different, these are two different words, with different spellings and pronunciations, for the same thing. Which one is right? Answer: Both and neither. If you're a Brit and say "I wrapped my sandwich in aluminium foil", an American is going to know what you're talking about.
They're less likely to understand "biscuit", "rubbish", "rubber", or a variety of other terms, however, because they have different words for it. What the Brits call "biscuits", Americans call "cookies", and what Americans call "biscuits" more closely resembles what Brits call "scones". Americans call rubbish "trash" or "garbage", and rubbers "erasers". But it's not like their perception of reality is different. It's just that, even being so similar, our languages are. But woe betide the fool who claims one of them is more correct.
In the same way, the Bible, which was originally written in radically different languages to English, describes the same reality in different terms. It is sheer arrogance to charge it with error for doing so. If you're going to claim that scripture is wrong for describing reality different than you, you're going to have to make the incredibly racist claim that only 21st century English is valid, and anyone who doesn't speak it should be excluded from the scientific community.