Basically, Christians have two approaches to reconciling science and the meaning of Scripture. One approach called concordism looks for a way to understand a given passage as teaching something true or factual or historical about the natural world. Sometimes this means they insist that the passage is really referring to things that were unknown at the time it was written. For example some old earth creationists think the “firmament” of Genesis is refers to the “fabric of space” and has something to do with the space time continuum, even though only someone with a modern understanding of astrophysics could ever come to that conclusion. Or some creationists take the verses about creatures reproducing after their kind and assume that must mean there are boundaries between species or families that cannot be crossed by adaptation and evolutionary processes. Since the sky is clearly not hard, all references that imply it is are taken to be poetic or purely figurative.
The other approach is called divine accommodation and it assumes that God spoke to the ancient audience of the Bible in the way they could best understand and "accommodated’ their ancient conceptual frameworks for understanding how the world works, even when those frameworks were not scientifically correct. So, God did not correct their understanding of the sky as a solid dome or that men plant seeds in women to make babies or that thoughts and emotions originate in the kidneys.
If you take the concordist approach, you basically have to assume that a lot of descriptive language was purely figurative and not grounded in their actual concepts about how the world worked so the Bible can be made to “concord” with the fact of science. So when passages talk about the windows of heaven being opened to let out the storehouses of snow, that is assumed to be just a figure of speech, not an actual conceptualization of how precipitation works. But if you take the divine accommodation approach, it’s not a problem to admit that the ancients thought the sky was solid and had floodgates to let out the rain. It’s not a figure of speech, the ancients just didn’t have a concept of the atmosphere or water cycle and God accommodated their understanding when communicating, he didn’t teach them modern science.
When you read the Bible in translation, decisions have been made about how to translate idioms and what is literal and what is figurative language, because the point is to communicate the message, not give you a gloss of the Hebrew or Greek. Even when you read Hebrew or Greek lexicons, decisions have been made by scholars removed from the original time and culture about how to translate the words for the lexicon and what semantic range to include in the entries. Translations have to accommodate our own cultural constructs in order to be comprehensible. We have a concept of "mind’ centered in the brain, but that wasn’t the Hebrew concept. Translations try to bridge the gap and get at the intent of the communication.