To put it another way, it isn't difficult to hammer a square peg into a round hole if one's hammer is big and heavy enough, and if the final condition of both the peg and the hole is not important.

Beginning with Eccl 1:5, I have searched in vain for any support for your contention that the verbs involved do not imply motion:

'It isn't really a motion verb. That's an accomodation to English..'

Every English-language translation I have found says 'rises' and 'sets' or 'goes up' and 'goes down'. The translators, I think, deserve some credit for erudition, and they could just as easily have used other verbs if others were more appropriate. The 1912 German Luther Bible says, 'Die Sonne GEHT auf und GEHT unter und LÄUFT an ihren Ort, dass sie wieder daselbst aufGEHE.' (my emphasis). The online New English Translation (NET - and not to be confused with the New English Bible), a wonderful source of Biblical etymology, says (cut and pasted):

1:5 The sun rises19 and the sun sets,20

and to the place to which it hastens,21 from there it rises22 again.23

.....and here is their etymology:

19tn The participle j^r}oz (“to rise”) emphasizes continual, durative, uninterrupted action (present universal use of participle): the sun is continually rising (and continually setting) day after day.
20tn Heb “the sun goes.” The participle aB (“to go”) emphasizes continual, durative, uninterrupted action (present universal use of participle): the sun is continually rising and continually setting day after day. The repetition of aB in 1:4-5 creates a comparison between the relative futility of all human endeavor (“a generation comes and a generation goes” [aB]) with the relative futility of the action of the sun (“the sun rises and the sun goes” [i.e., “sets,” aB]).
21tn Heb “hastens” or “pants.” The verb [av has a three-fold range of meanings: (1) “to gasp; to pant,” (2) “to pant after; to long for,” and (3) “to hasten; to hurry” (KBL3 937; BDB 983). The related Aramaic root [wv means “to be thirsty; to be parched.” The Hebrew verb is used of “gasping” for breath, like a woman in the travail of childbirth (Isa 42:14); “panting” with eagerness or desire (Job 5:5; 7:2; 36:20; Ps 119:131; Jer 2:24) or “panting” with fatigue (Jer 14:6; Eccl 1:5). Here [av personifies the sun, panting with fatigue, as it hastens to its destination (BDB 983 [1]). The participle form depicts continual, uninterrupted, durative action (present universal use). Like the sun, man—for all his efforts—never really changes anything; all he accomplishes in his toil is to wear himself out.
22tn The verb jrz is repeated in this verse to emphasize that the sun is locked into a never changing, ever repeating monotonous cycle: rising, setting, rising, setting. In 1:5a the perfect tense focuses on the starting point of the cycle (present definite use of perfect): “the sun rises” (at a definite point in time). However, in 1:5b the participle emphasizes the continual, uninterrupted cycle of the sunrise (present universal use of participle): “there it continually rises again.”
23tn The word “again” does not appear in Hebrew, but is supplied in the translation for clarity and smoothness

--end of excerpt--

I think you would agree that the earth as the immovable center of creation was accepted at the time Eccl was written. You seem to saying (and once again, I'm not trying to put words in your mouth), 'The author, whether by divine inspiration or otherwise, knew what no one else knew, that the earth revolves around the sun, but he stated this scientific fact metaphorically for poetic purposes.' Caf, are you serious? Even the online 'Blue Letter Bible', fiercely Fundamentalist, fails to support you here in its extensive notations on the verse.

Regarding 'chewing of the cud, here is what the NET says about the Hebrew language used:

3tn Heb “bringer up of the cud” (a few of the early versions have the copula “and” written, but it does not appear in the MT). The following verses make it clear that both dividing the hoof and chewing the cud were required; one would not be enough to make the animal suitable for eating without the other.

Caf, the hare bringeth up naught. You are, of course, correct, that some species eat their droppings (this is, I believe, called 'coprophagy', for those of you who like to learn a new word each day), but that is nothing like 'bringing up the cud' - the digestive systems are completely different.

My understanding regarding the camel, from non-Biblical sources, is that the foot or hoof, when put down with the beast's weight on it, spreads out and a fold of skin obscures the cleft, but it is there just the same.

When you say 'Moses made no scientific error here', you are of course, correct, since the book dates to the Exile, centuries after Moses.

I never cease to be amazed how Fundamentalists, my brethren and sistern in Christ, fail to 'get it'. Maybe it's because their separation from the 'mother religion' is greater that mine. The Jews had it right all along: Ya got the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings.

The Law tells you what to do to be an observant Jew. Don't eat hares, they're FILTHY! You can get all kinds of diseases just from handling them! Whether they literally 'bring up' the cud is unimportant. That the human author thought they did has nothing to do with the prohibition.

The Writings, on the other hand, are a combination of theology, history, inspiration, and story telling, factual and fictitious. No claim of 'literal truth' was ever made here until Fundamentalist Christians began putting their own 'spin' on the Bible.

--continued below--