For a start; the Bible was written by people. This means that those people assumed on God's motives and intentions.
We are not debating the source of the Bible, so regardless of who wrote it, if a literal reading of the Bible does not disagree with the "precise science of astronomy", can one claim the Bible WRONG?
This is just like taking a book on philosophy that says ' The universe literally exists, there was a time when the earth was void of life...' and comparing it with astronomy. Taking the philosophy books literal meaning we find the following: The book does not specify any age to the universe, but astronomy does;The philosophy book does agree with astronomy that the universe literally exists, even though the book does not agree with other biology books on the origins of life; So, regardless of OTHER topics covered by the book, or authorship, does the omission of factual data (i.e. the age of the universe) make the philosophy book wrong on that subject?
Secondly I will accept not a plausible answer open to interpretation but an answer capable of surviving scientific scrutiny.
With all due respect, the interpretation is not subject to interpretation, the text is. So I have given a good interpretation of the Biblical text that agrees with cosmology. Can you say that my interpretation disagrees with cosmology on this topic? If yes, then please explain, if no, then I see an intent to disbelieve the possibility of the Bible to be correct. If you're not open minded to acknowledge the possibility of the Bible to be correct, then what's the point of discussion? If you show me that on this topic there are no Biblical interpretations of its text that fit cosmology but it is absolutely contradictory, then I will question the validity of the Bible.
The bible's account of creation can only be taken on a philosophical basis. Astronomy is a very precise science and uses physics as its main tool. So it is only common sense to refute the Bible as a scientific source on creation.
As an Atheist, you are in NO place to determine how to "take" the Bible. You don't believe the Bible, you think it's it the opiate of the masses. How can a paleontologist tell a mathematician how to read his math books? ( Maybe as 2+2=6?)
Quite frankly the Bible is to be taken literally. If you don't then you can come up with ANY interpretation that you like nullifying the intended message. You don't take a letter from your wife metaphorically when she says she loves you and misses you, why do that to the Bible?
If the literal interpretation of the Bible conflicts with science, then we have a problem, but if the literal interpretation is in accord with it, why discredit the Bible on that particular subject? Simply because it's the Bible? I think that at that point the preconceived notions overrule any logical conclusion.
The Bible does not claim to be a science book, it only generalizes the historical events. It is up to science to come up with details. The literal interpretation of the Bible yield multiple possibilities as to the age of the universe. Does it make it WRONG?