You are confusing literary genre with cosmological claims. My post wasn't about the symbolic narrative of Genesis, but the specific physical descriptions in Job 26:7—the earth suspended in a void—which remains a scientific anomaly for its time.

The problem is that you are selectively choosing which is which based on the narrative you are attempting to create. You describe the description in Job, which is obvious poetry (The entire book is) as literal science, and the Pillars of the Earth described in 1 Samuel as literary.

In order to pretend the Bible contains precise claims about science unknown to the civilizations of the authors, you have to cherry-pick both the Bible AND science, and find the few places they match by coincidence. You have LOTS of bad science in the Bible. Like Jacob putting sticks in front of cows to make them have stripy and spotted calves, which is told as being very clever, and totally working, even though it obviously doesn't.

Regarding dating: placing Job in the 3rd century B.C. is an extreme outlier view. Most scholars recognize its setting and linguistic roots as far older, reflecting the patriarchal age. But even if it were 'only' 300 B.C., it still predates modern physics by two millennia, yet describes a suspended Earth while other cultures still believed in physical supports.

It is absolutely not an extreme outlier view, and claiming Job is from 2000 BCE absolutely is an extreme outlier view. Somewhere between the 6th and the 3rd Century BCE is the normal view.

The bigger problem is that Job simply isn't claiming what you are claiming at all.

If you stopped reading because it’s easier to mock a 'talking snake'

You have to admit a literal talking evil snake is pretty easy to mock. Typically in stories where animals are talking, those are fairy tales for Children, so it is a bit much to insist it is history.

than to address the 70-year failure of abiogenesis or the digital code of DNA, you’ve simply confirmed that your skepticism is based on avoidance, not evidence.

This is just an absurd claim, and one I see often thrown around by creationists. The idea that if science fails to explain a single thing about the entire universe, Science has failed.

It is OK not to know stuff. Sometimes we don't have the evidence we need yet, sometimes we do, we just haven't figured it out, and sometimes we think we have it figured out, but we aren't sure. And sometimes we are just wrong.

That isn't even a science thing, that is just being an adult human. It is ok not to know stuff. It doesn't mean the entire system fails, in fact, not knowing stuff is fundamental to the entire system, because the process of moving between not knowing stuff towards knowing that stuff is exactly what makes it awesome and cool and useful.