Yes, and I've heard that the ancient Hebrews were really counting months instead of years when they passed on the ages of the patriarchs as well.
It just reinforces that the Bible cannot be counted on to answer questions of specific fact, especially in such things as the age of the earth.
I don't expect to convince devoted fundamentalists that the Bible is not the inspired word of God. I am trying to show that the Bible is not literal fact. Unfortunately, people who have invested their lives in this belief system will almost always find a way to rationalize any discrepancies. It is far easier to do this than to change the basis of their belief structure.
This unwillingness to change in the face of evidence is a fundamental part of human nature that has been demonstrated over and over throughout history.
Only severe, life changing crises have been shown to be capable of initiating a serious change in belief structures. Those that can be persuaded by evidence are a small minority.
"It just reinforces that the Bible cannot be counted on to answer questions of specific fact, especially in such things as the age of the earth."
I agree that the Bible doesn't seem to address the age of the Earth, although from the things that I read in the Bible, it seems as if the Earth is very old and in this case, it agrees with science. No problem there.
One of the big issues that comes up in crevo threads is the age of the Earth. Creationists are forever being accused of being YEC and therefore twisting science to fit their agenda. Not all creationists believe in the young Earth. That was calculated by a man using presupmtions of certain Bible passages. It should not be taken literally because it is not Scripture, it is only based somewhat on Scripture in that he used the Bible to make his calculations. Here is a case where a *religious* belief is clearly wrong but it doesn't invalidate the Bible. There is too much room for human error there and it should be tossed for that reason alone.