Ben Levi,
The opinion that when Chazal said scientific statements they meant something else entirely, and the statements are not necessarily accurate scientifically is really not relevant to this discussion. We are discussing if Chazal knew science and if their scientific statements should be taken over those of modern scientists when they contradict each other. If Chazal’s scientific statements were not meant to be taken literally the conversation ends there, (As we can all agree that modern scientific statements are meant to be taken literally)
As far as the position that Moreh Nevuchim is not to be taken at face value and the Rambam was writing some sort of “Sod” in code. I stand by what I said earlier. Unless you have some sort of proof that the Rambam did not in fact mean what he wrote (independent of the fact that what he wrote disagrees with your ideas of how things should be) it is silly to say that he didn’t in fact mean them. He was quite clear what he said and even goes through why he said them at length.
You did not address points 5 and 6 of my above post and keep on listing the people who agreed that the Rambam meant what he wrote but came out against him. I will rewrite the point:
Again, if the Metzius has proven the Rambam correct (that Chazal’s science was based on the science of their times and is not infallible) then it wouldn’t make a difference even if EVERY SINGLE Talmud Chachom that lived after him argued on him. This is a discussion about Metzius. If he was correct then he was correct, doesn’t matter who said or says otherwise.