I accept the current Big Bang model, which states that the universe began 13.8 billion years ago. I also accept findings of radiometric data that the Earth formed 4.5 billion years ago. Finally I accept the geochemical evidence that life on earth began approx. 3.8 billion years ago. So no, I would reject a literal-scientific understanding of six-day creation.
I am not "predisposed" to this view.
You might not be predisposed to this view, but this view is predisposing the way you look at a picture as conclusive proof of something you already believe.
When you reject the Bible you basically reject the religious framework within which you can properly understand anything about our world and human life on it, and you opt for the narrative of a false religion in its place.
Finally, I will concede that one who holds to a view like mine, that is a view of biblical accommodation, while still holding to inerrancy, must walk a tight line.
You might imagine you are walking a tight line, but from where I stand you have yielded the narrative of life to another religion. As Exod. 15 teaches God has triumphed gloriously. His narrative of life is to be chosen over the narrative of the Egyptian gods.
Although poetic, and beautiful, there is no way to understand the idea of a tent for the sun, rising from one end to the other with its heat not hidden from anything unless you have a flat earth with a firmament dome above.
Calvin on this place has grasped the meaning of the passage and might help you to escape from the bad influence of a false religion:
he shows us the sun as placed in the highest rank, because in his wonderful brightness the majesty of God displays itself more magnificently than in all the rest. The other planets, it is true, have also their motions, and as it were the appointed places within which they run their race, and the firmament, by its own revolution, draws with it all the fixed stars, but it would have been lost time for David to have attempted to teach the secrets of astronomy to the rude and unlearned; and therefore he reckoned it sufficient to speak in a homely style, that he might reprove the whole world of ingratitude, if, in beholding the sun, they are not taught the fear and the knowledge of God. This, then, is the reason why he says that a tent or pavilion has been erected for the sun, and also why he says, that he goes forth from one end of the heaven, and quickly passes to the other and opposite end. He does not here discourse scientifically (as he might have done, had he spoken among philosophers) concerning the entire revolution which the sun performs, but, accommodating himself to the rudest and dullest, he confines himself to the ordinary appearances presented to the eye, and, for this reason, he does not speak of the other half of the sun’s course, which does not appear in our hemisphere. He proposes to us three things to be considered in the sun, — the splendor and excellency of his forms — the swiftness with which he runs his course, — and the astonishing power of his heat.
The idea that everyone could see something on earth only makes sense if you already have a flat earth cosmology.
The tree symbolises the king's dominion. The "sight" of the tree is symbolic for the broad recognition of that dominion. It is not literal.
How else would you interpret Neh. 7:5?
"Heart" in the Hebrew Old Testament is the psychological centre of the person.