Thanks for the link. I just finished reading it. Unfortunately, it was interesting but not that helpful. He basically said, it seems to me, “The numbers are probably symbolic, but we don’t know what they were intended to communicate.”
Right, well, I already suspected as much. What I am super curious to know (and haven’t seen anyone address) is what those numbers mean. When dealing with young-earth creationists, I would like to say something more helpful than, “It’s not literal ages.” That will fall on deaf ears, and understandbly so. Before attempting to turn over idea X, one should have a better idea Y to replace it—rather than nothing (otherwise idea X will be retained for lack of anything else).
I shall have to give that 2003 article by Carol Hill a read sometime. I no longer remember what occasioned my suspicion about her, but I vaguely recall something she wrote turning me off once. I’ll have to give her another chance. My views have probably changed since then.