Another way of looking at the text is given by Origen, (cut & paste from class notes, errors mine)
Origen of Alexandria (ca. 185-254), held that one often came across what he called “impossibilities” in the text, impossibilities of various sorts: mythological creatures, historical impossibilities, lapses of logic, etc. His theory was that the sacred authors, inspired by the Holy Spirit, placed these intentionally into the text so that the “spiritual” character or “inner meaning” of the text could show through. He comments:
Divine Wisdom has arranged for there to be certain stumbling blocks or interruptions of the narrative meaning, by inserting in its midst certain impossibilities and contradictions, so that the very interpretation of the narrative might oppose the reader, as it were, with certain obstacles thrown in the way. By them Wisdom denies a way and an access to the common understanding, and when we are shut out and hurled back, it calls us back to the beginning of another way, so that by gaining a higher and loftier road through entering a narrow footpath it may open for us the immense breadth of divine knowledge.
Or again, Origen comments that by means of the impossibilities sprinkled into the narrative, the Holy Spirit acts to “turn and call back the mind of the reader to the examination of the inner meaning” of the narrative (On First Principles 4.2.9)."
Let's not forget the "Fathers" were wrong about many things. Luther thought Corpernicus and Galileo were wrong about helicentrism. Why do people think the fathers, who knew virtually nothing about science (or the biblical languages) compared to us, have some kind of special insight to science? That doesn't make sense. Many people just go through history picking people who support their view. That doesn't prove their view, it only shows someone else had the same view. It's like the Darwin Fundies who make a list of people who support Darwinism then use that as proof for Darwinsim.