I believe it is a mistake to assume that in antiquity and earlier, particularly during the Bronze Age (which is the period from which I believe Genesis is derived) that anyone understood as we do that the moon shines by reflected sunlight. Too many from that era (among the most advanced cultures then on earth) believed the moon was a god for any of us to have the mistaken belief that anyone back then understood cosmology as we do.
But your conclusion is based on the assumption that the Bible is wrong and that early man was primitive. Looking at the Genesis record, these men of antiquity were our superior ancestors. They didn't have our technology nor resources, especially after the Flood, but they lived much longer and were much smarter. We see glimpses of this in magalith structures found all over the world, including submerged structures showing ancient man was busy at work right after the Flood during the ice age when ocean levels were lower. We see it in the pyramids, which boggle the minds of even modern engineers.
I recommend the book:
The Genius of Ancient Man, by Don Landis
And the bronze age actually occurred before the Flood, as the early descendants of Cain were proficient in metal technology. After the flood it may have lapsed again, having the typography of the earth totally rearranged.
Keep in mind also, Egypt, Greece and Ethiopia were among the post-diluvian grandsons of Noah (Gen. 10). These were the men that founded those ancient civilizations, according to the Bible. But again, you've chosen to believe other historical records over the Bible.
Simply putting the creation of the sun, moon and stars four days after the creation of light is enough to show me scripture is not scientifically accurate. The real problem though is that Genesis presents a view of cosmology that reflects, not our modern understanding, but the view held by the Babylonians. Read carefully though it and you will see that the picture Genesis gives is the universe as a 'snow globe'. You've seen them before. They are for sale in novelty shops.
Total myth. There is nothing in Genesis that remotely lends itself to solid dome cosmology. This theory has been propagated by Paul Seely, Denise Lamoureux and others and is based on a pathetically poor exegesis of the terms
raqiya and
shamayim. The theory is easily refuted once you accept the definitions of these words, expressly given by God, Himself, in Gen. 1.
Here's a good article that goes into detail in this.
Does Genesis teach solid-dome cosmology?
But I'm actually well versed on this issue. Tell me what convinced you the Bible teaches solid dome cosmology. In fact, I'd invite you to start a new thread.