....I see that you lifted the posted article from "Good News Magazine" a creationist periodical.
That's fine, but have you read what it says?
The entire article seems to argue that there is no discrepancy between the intent of scripture and the
scientifically established age of the Earth. Do you agree?
Of course the argument is based wholey upon Biblical exegesis & grammatical elements within the original Aramaic scriptures - note the following quote:
"...The original Hebrew wording, compared with other passages of Scripture, has led some to conclude that a considerable time interval is indicated between these two verses. If such an interval is indeed intended, there is no discrepancy between the Bible record and scientific discoveries that indicate that the earth could be much older than a few thousand years. If, on the other hand, there is no such gap, then the earth itself must be only around 6,000 years old—which most scientists consider an impossibility."
That's all very well and good but we are still left with several questions regarding the Bible.
What is its purpose - a spiritual text (detailing the historical relationship between man & God), or a scientific text?
Should the Bible be taken literally or should it be studied in order to arrive at a true interpretation of the text?
If the Bible text contradicts established knowledge or common sense do we disregard established knowledge or claim the Bible is false?
To use one example which has been a staple on this board: four legged insects.
In Leviticus 11:20-23 scripture identifies insects as having four legs. Some argue that this applies only to grasshoppers and other hopping insects because they don't use their large rear legs except to jump. However this is erroneous since all members of the Taxonomic group Orthoptera do indeed use their rear legs to grip and even walk.
So are we to use this as an example to decry the Bible?
First let's look at the passage as it is listed in the KJV Bible (the one most creationissts are accustomed to):
"All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you.
Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth;
Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind.
But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you."
Clearly the passage has nothing to do with any attempt at classifying insects or at describing their morphology.
Instead the passage is distinctly seen to be a dietary law - nothing more or less.
The Bible is NOT a scientific text, nor should scientific lessons or information be sought from it.
The OT is a record of man's relationship with God and the NT is a message of hope for humanity.
Science in general (and evolution in particular) has nothing to say about God, spirituality or morality.
People who do so actually pervert the intent of both Science & Christianity.
On another note:
The article says at one point:
"The early Catholic theologian Origen (186-254)..."
However Origen was not 'Catholic' per se. Note the date - 2nd/3rd century AD - long before any distinction was made made between Christians of East or West, much less between Catholic and Protestant.
Also, as a reinforcement to my comments I would direct those interested to reading one of the most influential early Christian theologians St. Augustine of Hippo about literalism and common sense:
"It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian.
It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are.
In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation."
--- De Genesi ad Literam 1:19–20, Chapt. 19 [AD 408]
With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith.
For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures.
In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation."