No, it will prove that Biblical literalism is false, but that's a novel minority doctrine in Christianity that is already disproven by (among other things) the two conflicting creation sequences in Genesis.
“It wasn't literal [, where convenient]”
“The New Testament retcons this, ignore inconvenient or contradictory things in the Old Testament”
“It was translated wrong in ye olde English from Greek and Hebrew”
and finally conclude “it’s open to interpretation”
there, I saved you the whole conversation.
For example, in law one could fairly comment that:
1. Literalism isn't absolute - e.g the old British legal tradition of using England to refer to England & Wales
2. Laws supersede one another - new laws overriding old ones, constitutional laws taking primacy
3. Translation challenges occur - when documents like birth/death certificates, immigration papers, college transcripts, police clearances, marriage licenses, divorce decrees and etc are submitted in foreign countries for acceptance by courts and other institutions as legal record.
4. There is space for interpretation - See laws deliberately leaving room for interpretation with phrases like "reasonable force"
Despite these challenges, textual critics of legal writings are often able to successfully decide whether a given statement about a text is correct/incorrect.