If you try to deny the entire bible’s validity based on the…?

argument that christians believe the bible when it says the earth is 6000 years old… would the notion of a Great Year (as used in ancient astrotheology) of being over 25,000 years and applied to the number 6000 make a seemingly ludicrous fact a little more plausible when taken not in a STRICTLY LITERAL sense? just thinking…
i can see once again that a point has been hit a little too high out over the stands in this crowd, so i’ll try the, boring, direct approach: people who use the label of literalism to discredit other people’s thought and who are guilty of the same kind of literalist translation to support their discrediting, should probably drop the stones right now.
let’s try again. it’s not the facts in question here. it’s the rhetorical dynamic used to question the argument that is flawed. this is precisely what i’m trying to point out. you can’t defeat an argument if the argument you use to defeat an argument is flawed itself. p effin s: drop your weapons and wave your hands in the air like you just don’t care!!!
why can’t we all just accept one another and love one another and not demand that all of us become what all of us want all of us others to become and have some drinks and some laughs together instead of all this s**t? go away!!!

The Bible DOESN’T SAY the earth is 6000 years old… two nuts, Lightfoot and Ussher, from the 17th century (several others published similar numbers around the same time) said that and unfortunately, it seems to have stuck. The Bible makes no such statement.

… Arriving at such a claim requires doing a significant disservice to the text, taking numerous passages out of their contexts, and applying grossly improper exegetical methods.

Modern people who believe this read it into the scriptures rather than discover it through an exposition of those scriptures…