First of all, you did the second calculation incorrectly. You should have had $F(0.0032)-F(-0.0032)$. If you do this, you will see that the result of the second calculation is approximately 50 times smaller than the result of the first. (This comes from continuity of the normal PDF.) This is to be expected because you're using an interval of length $0.02=1/50$ instead of an interval of length $1$. That is, a normal approximation of $50 (F(0.0032)-F(-0.0032))$ would give you a very similar result to the first calculation.
The rest of this is a somewhat subtle discussion about this issue, which may not be quite suitable for a beginning statistics student.
The meaningful thing is that the binomial CDF $F_b$ and the appropriate normal CDF $F_n$ are close to one another. The continuity correction is used to relate this to the binomial PMF $f_b$. The problem is that $f_b$ can be represented in any number of different ways in terms of $F_b$.
Specifically, for any two real numbers $x,y \in [0,1)$, $f_b(m)=F_b(m+x)-F_b(m-1+y)$. To approximate $f_b(m)$ using $F_n$, we choose $x$ and $y$ and then approximate these values of $F_b$ using the corresponding values of $F_n$.
But it is not good enough to just get an acceptable approximation of these values of $F_b$, because when $n$ (the number of binomial trials) is large, these two numbers are very close. As a result small relative errors in our approximations of $F_b(m+x)$ and $F_b(m-1+y)$ can cause large relative errors in the difference. (As an example, consider $x=1.001$, $y=1$, and attempting to approximate $x-y$ when replacing $x$ with $z=1.0015$. Here $z$ and $x$ are relatively quite close together but $x-y$ and $z-y$ are relatively quite far apart.)
It turns out that we can only make this error even moderately small if $x=y$. More precisely, if $x \neq y$ then our value will be off by a factor of about $x-y+1$, even as $n \to \infty$. This is essentially because the values of the binomial variable are separated by intervals of length $1$; the precise details involve analytical tricks that are beyond the scope of both calculus and elementary statistics.
Moreover the error is minimized in an appropriate sense when $x=y=1/2$. Nevertheless, if $X$ is $Bin(n,p)$ and $Y$ is $N(np,np(1-p))$, then $P(X=m)$ is still well-approximated by, for example, $P(m \leq Y \leq m+1)$. It is just that $P(m-1/2 \leq Y \leq m+1/2)$ is a better approximation, especially if $m$ is close to $np$.
Best Answer
If (and this is a big if) what you mean is that the $n$ components all start at time zero, that each component has a lifetime exponentially distributed with mean $10=1/\lambda$ and if the question is to know for which minimal value of $n$ one has $p_n\leqslant\varepsilon$ where $\varepsilon=1/1'000$ and $p_n$ is the probability that none of the $n$ components is still in function at time $t=4$, then here is your answer.
The probability that a given component is not functioning at time $t$ is $p_1=1-\exp(-\lambda t)$ hence the probability that none of them is functioning is $p_n=(p_1)^n=(1-\exp(-\lambda t))^n$. Numerically, $p_6=0.0013$ and $p_7=0.0004$ hence $p_6>\varepsilon>p_7$ and the minimal $n$ is $7$.