Both the NIV and KJV are accurate Bibles, but people get hung up on 1611 English. I use both personally.
The verses you're listing are poetic in the description of God's creation as well. It helps to not take them over-literally. You do need to take the Bible literally, as in this prophet did exist, really say these things, and really do this miracle, and when it gives you a command, it really is God's command. But over-literal interpretation like the earth being a metal bowl or Solomon's wife's hair being a flock of goats just isn't what anyone needs to do, and it's not what conservative believers mean by "taking the Bible literally."
Wow, this is a big topic.
I'll just give my own chronology in it.
I started as a Bible-believing Evangelical, so accepted the whole Bible and I think that accounts for the confusion.
A year later I had met Fundamentalists and their theology was much simpler, but having started as an Evangelical I couldn't see how totally abandoning works fit with James or the Gospels, it wasn't until much later I found many modern Dispensationalists have resolved that by dumping the Gospels into the Old Testament since it was preached to the Jews before the resurrection.
Being an Evangelical and accepting Covenant Theology I had to take the whole Bible as being God's message, and also accepted the Fundamentalist position on top of the Creation accounts and Noah's Flood.
There was always a logical problem over what belonged in the Canon because nothing in the Bible specifies that, and there certainly are a lot of opinions about what should be in and what should be out. The Churches have moved together somewhat on this issue since then.
But that is one question the Bible clearly can not answer and it is a vitally important one.
The problem of guidance was another sticking point.
But I came unstuck on Noah's Flood. Our Minister who was an utterly sincere Christian and extremely knowledgeable as a totally convinced Christian should be, had no suggestions on whether the Flood was local or global, but lent me a book on the topic. Evidently he hadn't read or remembered the book because it was equally unclear on the point and admitted to a total lack of any scientific knowledge.
I read 'The Great Brain Robbery' by Dr David Watson, and he insisted there was no way to class the start of Genesis as metaphorical because it was written in the same way and using the same words as the later parts. He absolutely insisted it had to be all true exactly as written.
Unfortunately his doctorate only covered theology, when he started trying to justify his decision from the science end it was all nonsense.
That really sealed my escape route; I couldn't do the 'if it is true then it is literal and if it isn't then it is meant to be taken metaphorically' thing on it.
Sorry.
