Yes, exactly.
If you interpret the stories of Genesis as rough outlines of the history of the universe prior to man, told for the benefit of people who had not developed scientific methodology yet, then there really is no conflict.
Gen. 1:3— “And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.” Which took place as the big bang, several billion years ago.
As you point out, a literal interpretation of the Genesis stories is problematic. The discrepancy between the measured age of the earth and the Biblical 6,000 year old earth is only one of those problems—there are many more. For instance, when Cain was cast out of the garden and was afraid that someone would kill him, who, exactly, was he afraid of? And when he ended up in the land of Nod—where did that come from, since at this point, Cain is the only living child of the first pair of humans? And so on. The only way Genesis makes sense is as a moral lesson.
Well i have no problem with taking the bible literally. However the problem is that people add suppositions and traditions to what is written down.
For example Adam and Eve lived hundreds of years. The bible only lists three sons, Cain, ABel and Seth. Three kids in hundreds of years? That kind of defeats the purpose of go forth and multiply. But the problem isn't that the bible is wrong...the bible NEVER says that these were the only three kids. God inspired stories to be told that can benefit us...he didn't give a detailed history of everything. So Adam and Eve must have had hundreds of kids and the story of Cain slaying Abel could have taken after hundreds had been born and born their own kids. So by the time of Cain's wandering there could have been thousands of people concentrated in the vicinity of where Adam and Eve were originally.
So in the case of a young earth God never SAYS the earth is six thousand years old...BUT the history of the people HE chose to work with goes back about 6000 years biblically. What went before was buried under the waters described in Genesis 1.