That is the trick, isn't it? Non-specific statements can never be wrong.
Of course they can.
It all depends on your frame of reference. If you were trying to tell a primitive tribe on a island how an airplane can fly, would you get into the specifics of thrust to weight ratios and the importance of wing shape to lift? The fact that it flew through the air and carried people would stretch their imaginations. Without basic physics any further explanation would be meaningless. Understanding this, you tell them:
A. The plane flew through the air (accurate without the specifics of "how")
B. The plane carried people inside in (accurate without telling them how the plane was flown)
They dutifully scratch out the story on a rock so it can be passed down. They primitives to whom the story is told to accept it at face value and are just so amazed at the enormity of the event that they wouldn't think to ask for an explanation.
Future generations of islanders, however, begin to wonder "how" this happened and they begin to construct, within their frame of reference, a "how" story around the "fact" story. Since the only animal that they know that can fly is a bird, they guess that a giant bird carried the airplane, which in their story becomes a canoe because that is the only thing in their frame of reference that can carry people.
I think the Bible is like the facts scratched on the rock, accurate as far as they go because of the limited frame of reference of those to whom they were told. It doesn't make them less truthful and it doesn't mean the teller was being deceitful.