Its mainly dumbed down in translation only. The Hebrew can be technical and specific in meaning, whereas what we see in translation is like conversing with a ten year old child.
Not referring to the Hebrew, referring to the fact that God doesn't bother correcting the inaccurate prescientific views of the time, but communicates through them because this is what they understand (Divine Accommodation).
Also, here is a copy-paste of concordist objection that gives the context of the "dumbing down" point:
Answering the Concordist Objection: the main objection to all this is that it attacks divine inspiration and makes God a liar. First, I agree with concerns about people using this to reject Scripture as authoritative. So, let's state up front that in no way are we endorsing that. We believe Scripture is divinely inspired and remains authoritative. But what about the accusation that it still makes God a liar? To this I say, concordists haven't thought this all the way through.
Even if God gave us a "perfectly" accurate MODERN scientific account of creation it still would have to be communicated through imperfect human language and it would still have to be dumbed-down to our level.
For example, the concordist might argue that God could have easily explained that the moon is not a "lesser light" source, but reflects light. And to make the scientific concordist happy, God could even state it in scientific terms like this college textbook type definition of reflection: "
when the [electromagnetic] waves encounter a surface or other boundary that does not absorb the energy of the radiation and bounces the waves away from the surface."
But here's the problem: even if God wrote Genesis in these terms, guess what? It would still be scientifically inaccurate and erroneous. Light does not "bounce" off the lunar surface or even a mirror. An accurate understanding of the physics of light reflection requires expertise in quantum electrodynamics, and that still doesn't fully explain it.
As a science teacher, I am acutely aware of the problem. Science teachers strive to be as accurate as we possibly can, but can never fully be so. We always end up having to "dumb it down" (for lack of a better expression) to the academic level of a given student audience (Don't parents do the same thing with their children when asked why the sky is blue? Or do they launch into a quantum level explanation of electron excitation and photon emission of light absorption and selective scattering of visible light in the blue range?). It is unavoidable. It is impossible to be "perfectly" accurate on the hand, while communicating in a way that your audience will understand. Otherwise it will be "over students' heads" and they end up learning nothing but frustration. It is unavoidable. As teachers, we have to use simplified, imprecise definitions, generalized examples that don't account for all the exceptions, artificial categories and classifications that don't exist in reality to organize facts for ease of learning, inaccurate analogies and story-telling; and make connections to science fiction, fantasy, and social-cultural norms and conventions and common sayings and idioms; fashion and music and social media and entertainment and sports and so on, not because those things have any real relationship to the scientific knowledge in a given lecture, but because students better understand and relate to such things, and the brain learns best in the context of prior knowledge by relating new information to what it already knows and understands.
Is this "lying"? Is it lying to *accommodate* your audience's level of understanding? Is it lying to use poor, inaccurate analogies like the "Greenhouse Effect" to explain differential absorption and re-radiation of solar energy by certain atmospheric gases? Greenhouse gases don't *trap* heat like a greenhouse. That is completely false. Does that make teachers liars for using this flawed analogy? Some times it's just the best way to communicate. I know light doesn't "bounce" off surfaces, but I don't know of a better way to communicate a *factual* definition of light reflection that students would understand.
You see, I don't think concordists have thought this through. They require that God give "perfectly" accurate scientific information, and yet if God actually did, none of us would have the capacity to understand it!
"Dumbing down" to your audience is not lying. It is effective communication. It is the only way we can effectively communicate: we have to communicate in terms the target audience can understand and relate to. And what better way for us to understand God than "the Word became flesh and dwelt among us."
