Of course not. I'm not trying to weaken the truthfulness of Scripture. I'm trying to show that your standard for what "truth" entails is malleable.
Do I believe that they exist in some manner that we don't fully understand and that the description of them as God gave us is the most accurate that we are able to comprehend?
Pretty much how I feel about the Creation account.
I think it’s actual *windows* (floodgates) of heaven but it’s better to use the definition than a Hebrew word that nobody can translate.
As far as I know, the Hebrew word in all its senses refers to openings in a physical barrier. If you don't think there was a real physical barrier with gates/windows/whatever that were opened to let the water through, then you must think the Bible has lies in it. Do you in fact believe there was once a physical barrier in the sky with openings to let water through?
Jesus gives us criteria by which to determine if someone is a follower of His.
I think He told us the criteria He'd be using to determine that. I think He explicitly told us not to try to make that determination ourselves.
But recognizing and pointing out that something doesn’t line up with Scripture is necessary, otherwise there would be no way for people on the wrong path to find out.
Pointing out your disagreement with their interpretation is one thing. Labeling them "not a true Christian" is quite another.
What about the Kuiper Belt and the Oort cloud? Do they not constitute some kind of “real physical barrier?” Are both not filled with material composed largely of water mixed with dust (plus metals, and rocks)? For those large and small comets, and the water they hold, to escape their barrier, does not someone/something have to open a gate/window/whatever? Would anyone prior to the last century have understood what The Bible meant by the Kuiper Belt or the Oort cloud? Certainly not before the terms were invented. Literal or allegorical? Yes, I think.
I recall, as a child, viewing a medieval representation of the Church’s concept of the firmament and the waters it held back. It was composed of great sweeping domes, supported by towering pillars. I remember thinking then that their idea didn’t quite get to the heart of the issue, but that it was probably the best they could do at the time, considering the extent of their knowledge. Decades later, I recall hearing about scientists theorizing on the origin of the presence of water on Earth. The consensus seemed to be that 90% of the water on Earth most likely came from comets. That strikes me as a better understanding of the waters of the firmament than soaring domes and towering pillars.
None of the above will likely be found satisfactory for some on this forum. But, for those of us who seek the truth, both of scripture and science, it seems possibly to be a reasonable starting point.