When it is talking about things that the people of that time observed in nature, it seems very accurate. For instance, the Bible says that the rock hyrax is an animal that chews the cud. [Leviticus 11: 5] It was long believed that the Bible was wrong about this, but recently it was discovered that they do, but only for short periods every day. It makes sense that people who lived in the wilderness as nomads might have found this out, while people in towns and colleges would not know it.
Then there is the "value of pi." In 1 Kings 7: 23, it is reported that Hiram built a pool that was circular, 10 cubits across and 20 cubits around. This makes, by our modern measurements, pi equal to 3. However, the cubit is simply the distance between the worker's elbow and fingertips; it is not precise enough to give a value more accurate than this. The observation was correct with the tools that they had at the time. Calling this mathematically inaccurate is an anachronism.
But I suppose you are talking about the creation accounts in Genesis. Yes, there are two creation accounts, and they are different from each other. I don't think they were ever intended to be purely descriptive like the descriptions in Leviticus, for instance. They were for moral and spiritual wisdom, not science.
There are clearly different kinds of writing in the Bible. There are accounts of history, some of them with all the earmarks of an eyewitness account; others sounding more as if they were passed down. There are legal systems, there is poetry, and symbolic writings.
It does not respect the Bible if you try to make it what it doesn't claim to be. It doesn't claim to be science. Look for the evidence within the text, to see whether it is telling history, or poetry, or law, or something else. That is how you respect any historical text.