In some of the genealogies of the Jews, a grandfather's name may be listed, as opposed to a father's, and if the wife was widowed and married to her late husband's brother, his name, rather than, the paternal father's may be listed. Or just the Patriarch may be listed, as in David. It's like saying you are of Scottish descent, of the McDonald's, even though your father is Sam McCloud, but your mother was a McDonald. There are no discrepancies.
bluepistolero
I agree, not in the grand sense of the concept. I'm only pointing out that you can't nitpick either recorded or natural history using the Bible as a 100% inerrant, literal record.
The point of Peter's denial was that he denied Christ 3 times, in spite of his professed faith; not the who, where, and when of it.
The point of Christ's geneology was that he was an heir to the legacy of King David, not specifically what person was how many steps removed from Jesus.
And in my opinion, the point of the account of Creation was that God was ultimately responsible, not when, where and how He did it. The specifics are not something the Bible even really seems to attempt to address, or else one would think there would have been more than a few pages dedicated to something of such colossal importance. The specifics details of what, where, when and how are something science can address; as long as ultimate responsibility is deferred to God for the existence of ourselves and the universe, I really see no conflict between what any scientific theory and the Bible says.
In any case, the evidence supporting the Big Bang, the gradual change of the earth over billions and years, and biological evolution of life on earth (all of which are separate theories) is too overwhelming to be brushed under the rug just to keep us content with a particular interpretation of Scripture. Science really has nothing to say about why - that is matter that can only be handled by faith.