Here's the problem with it:

By saying "Science then" they could be referring to any period of time. We know that by the time Aristotle was around, mankind knew the world to be round, but because of how it's phrased, a religious person will argue that they are talking about science before that time period. But science as a rigorous discipline didn't really exist before that time period. Thus, whoever is arguing for the biblical books is conflating early philosophy with early science, and while the two intermingled for a time, there is a difference between the two.

Edit: Also the biblical books have been translated and changed numerous times over the years. It's entirely possible that during those revisions and translations that someone changed the wording of the books to better fit accepted philosophy/science at the time.

I feel like /r/askscience would be more suited for this question.

I'm taking an astronomy course right now, and we just discussed history. I can say that by Plato's time (~400BCE) at the latest, they were very aware that the Earth was a sphere. And also that just by the sheer amount of different civilizations documenting the position of stars since the time writing had been written, there was definitely more than 1100 stars recorded. I think the "science then" column is cherrypicking information to fit the theme of "religion was actually smarter than science" in this case. This also would mean by Plato's time that they knew that Earth did not sit on a large animal.

One thing though, the idea that each star was perfect was true for very many people, right up until Galileo first looked at a star with his telescope. In ancient philosophy, stars were considered to be perfect objects, and because sun spots are really really difficult to see without a telescope, no one had the audacity or the information to say otherwise. Whether this means they thought they were all the same is hard to say.