Well, one good example for Genesis 1 would be that in ANE culture, until they picked up the idea from the Greeks, there was no concept of “world” in the sense of “cosmos”, a whole interconnected system analogous to an organism, and therefore having a clear shape and size. Therefore you can’t have a cosmology as such, and that’s so integral to our worldview that it’s hard not to impose it on the text.
Linked to that is that they had no concept of “nature” as a totality of reality - so “natural” reading even as a concept is alien to the text.
Then there’s the fact that, even up until mediaeval times (as Werner Heisenberg pointed out in his erudite way) the core reality of the world was its meaning, not its material structure. Which means that concepts like “symbolic” have an entirely different weight. Thus in an Egyptian tomb painting, the goddess Nut actually is the sky, and Geb is the earth, both in the actual world having merely the appearance of material substances. But we interpret the picture as divine/human symbols that represent the material “reality.”
That, of course, has an impact on the relationship between two stories superimposing some similar and some discordant images, like Genesis 1 & 2. If, as mainstream (hoorah!) OT scholars - not just Walton - are now saying, Gen 1 represents temple imagery, we are almost certainly wrong to think of them considering the world to be “like” a temple. It is a temple, and the Jerusalem temple, or the wilderness tabernacle, is a microcosmic version that is genuinely connected with it by some kind of correspondence or representation. The materials described are significant for their spiritual meaning far more than their physical aspect.Totally alien concepts to most of us - unless we’re mediaeval scholars used to heliotropes actually having a connection with the sun.