The case for ca. 6,000 more or less is most compelling in relation to the creation of Adam. It's the 6 days prior though that are the sticking point.
Ever read Gerald Schroeder? He makes an interesting case, though I have reservations about it. Anyway, his main point is that time is relative and that time is dilated at our position in the universe because of the expansion of space. It may *look* like 15 billion years from our vantage point, but that from another vantage point only 6 days elapsed. This, I think, cuts right to the heart of the day-age debate by stating (and quite correctly I think) that relativity ensures that the universe could be *both* 15 billions old AND 6 days old, *depending on where you look*. And of course we recall in this context the Scriptural quote that "the day of the Lord is like a thousand years".
We can have this debate. But I'm sick and tired of exegetes puffing up their chests with their own very fallible interpretations instead of some humility, as is proper toward the Word of God.
Ever read Genesis where it says "evening and morning X day" for each of the 6 days prior?
Ever read Exodus 20:11 where it directly relates the seven day week and the Sabbath to the creation week?
"We can have this debate. But I'm sick and tired of exegetes puffing up their chests with their own very fallible interpretations instead of some humility, as is proper toward the Word of God."
We can have this debate. But I'm sick and tired of exegetes putting on a false humility as though agreeing with man's word is virtuous and giving God credit for being able to say what he really did is human pride. (Isa 5:20)
Everything is on the table except what the Word of God actually says. OMG, we can't allow that!