err... are you saying 10s of 1000s or 1000s?
Yes, I do understand the Biblical chronology, having translated the names in a couple of genealogies. I know how hard this can be. I really do know how upsetting discussion of this kind can be, yet I also feel a responsibility to share with you a little of why I have taken the position I have, if only out of respect for a brother.
According to the archaeological record, at the time the Torah was put into writing, people had been herding in that area and across the Sahel for 14,000 years. Yes, that means I don't think the Creation of Bereshit was a literal story but a metaphor teaching a pattern of specific roots by which to learn about the cyclical nature of the relationship between the Lord and humankind. It is effectivley an overview of a cycle first described in the teachings from Gen. 2:4-Chapter 8. There are very good scriptural reasons for that observation I will not discuss here but suffice it to say that the hypothesis has been independently reviewed and I am pursuing it further.
That doesn't mean I don't think we have an all powerful G_d. It does mean that I think we don't know Him very well. I cannot imagine the kind of love it takes to tolerate so much ignorance flying off in all directions while He lets us work it out and truly learn how little we know and how much we need His direction.
I know, it can be very upsetting, but allow me to offer you an example as to what I mean as to translation problems. Consider this: A transliteration for the first two words in the Hebrew Torah would be "Bereshit bara," the standard translation to which is "In THE beginning." Yes, we are only two words into the Bible and we already have a problem: There is no definite article for "the" in "bereshit." If in fact it meant "In THE beginning," the Hebrew would read "b'hareshit" (the Hebrew definite article for "the" is "ha"). So a more accurate translation of what is on the scroll would be "in beginning," or "in A beginning" which would suggest a cycle and not THE beginning of all things. The second word for "created" is transliterated as "bara." Yet any Hebrew linguist will tell you that the root for "bara" as originally understood DOES NOT mean "created" as in 'something from nothing,' but indicates a shaping process involving a pre-existing workpiece (be sure to read the Genesius' lexicon entry within the page). Virtually all the references within the lexicon entry to 'something from nothing' come from our existing understanding of the passage and not from the language itself. That's how bad it is. In short, we're stuck in a tautological understanding of way too many words in the Torah to have a very good understanding of what was originally intended, for which there is a very good reason.
Remember: Until the last 120 years, Hebrew was virtually a dead language. In fact, the primary Christian source for the "old Testament" is the Septuagint. It was written in Greek in 235 BC for the purpose of making the Torah available to the vast majority of Jews who only spoke Greek. Over the next millennium, the Jewish people studied Torah and especially the Talmud almost exclusively in Greek up until the modern era. Virtually all the scholarship of Rashi, Maimonides, and Nachmanides, was written in Greek. Modern Hebrew was reconstructed from their 19th century modern Jewish understanding of the Bible built primarily on the writings of those three great rabbis.
Over the last several decades and especially since Israel was resettled by European Jews, archaeology has found numerous tablets by which to improve our understanding of the ancient language. One can read business orders, grocery lists, contracts... by which to refine our understanding of the language and its idioms at that time.
Unfortunately, the churches of this world haven't kept up with that explosion in knowledge (at least insofar as informing their parishioners). This is partly because many of the researchers were so hell bent on destroying religion but it is also because the parishioners would freak if they understood how little the priests really know. It would be very bad for business. In other words, the scholarship of the attackers was pretty bad but so was that of the defenders.
I don't pretend to be a scholar, although I do know a few and have contributed work they respect. I have a computer that doesn't care. Over time, the resources available on the Internet have become VERY powerful, allowing anyone willing to dig access to what was available only to academics 20 years ago with the addition of very powerful search tools. What I have that they don't have is a the combined understanding hands-on of land management, economics, political corruption, and history. I was brought up going to a Catholic school, going to an Episcopalian church, and attending the Jewish Community Center thereafter and over summer. I learned everybody's schtick.
As to Cain and Abel, it is probably a shepherd's polemic that is Sumerian in origin. That is certainly in no way in conflict with the Torah, but is at odds to our understanding of it.