Sure, its own terms. If you were to pick up a Mad Magazine (I haven't in years but I assume that it's still the same) you will approach that "literature" on its own terms. You expect something silly and nonsensical. You might groan at some of the "jokes" rather than laugh, but you are engaging the writers on their own terms.
I chose a rather extreme example to prove my point here.
However, the same approach should be used for the Bible. Is the Bible a book intending to tell the Natural History of the earth and cosmos? No.
The Bible is a collection of books written over a large period of time and so it's safe to say that there were many different local and immediate motivations behind its words. But throughout, we find the overall message is one of God's supernatural dealings with mankind.
Thus, it would be as wrong to look for a full and "accurate" Natural History of our planet from within the pages of the Bible as it would be to seek serious information regarding the U.S. Constitution on the pages of Mad Magazine.
There is no evidence whatsoever in the geologic record that the entire continental surface of the planet was covered by water withing any period in the past 6,000 years - or even a million years - or a billion!
The dimensions of an entirely wooden vessel such as the Ark of
Genesis 6 could not have stayed afloat for the 4 months to a years as required by the various interpretations of Genesis.
The animals described could not have been kept alive for that time period given the dimensions and conditions of such a wooden vessel.
Nowhere in the Bible does it say that this literally happened anyway, so why should we insist that it did? Our insistence serves no purpose and actually harms the faith of those who may be turning to Bible for helpful answers in this modern age.
Threaded Mode
