God created everything in six days and rested on the seventh  

The article states that "The text of Genesis relates that God created everything in six days and rested on the seventh."  And I agree if you do a casual reading of English translations.  However, some commentaters, notably E. W. Bullinger, argue that the six days describes the creation of the new world after the "world that was".  I have researched and understand Bullinger's argument.  I will present it here.

NIV:

Ge 1:1  In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2  Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

KJV:

 Ge 1:1  In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Now, the English word "formless" in the NIV and the english words "without form" in the KJV are translations of the Hebrew word tohu, G/K Number H9332 and Strong's Number H8414.  The Strongs Concordance lists one of the meanins of toho as "to lie waste" or simply "waste."  

Likewise, the english word "empty" in the NIV and the english word "void" in the KJV is translated from the Hewbrew bohu, G/K Number H983 and Strong's Number H922.  Strong's Concordance provides one of the definitions of bohu as ruin.

Consequently, it is argued that the verses could be considered something like ~ "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2  Now the earth was waste and ruin, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters."

Furthermore, Bullinger's observations continue to, and link 2Pe3:6, which states (KJV) 2Pe3:6 "Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished."  Bullinger believes that this is a reference to Ge1:1-2, and not the flood during Noah's time.  He concludes with "The creation in eternity past, to which all fossils and remains belong."  (Companion Bible, page 3).

Consequently, the articles should include, in my opinion, the fact that some theologians reject the young Earth on literal grounds.

See the Bullinger's side notes [].

Also, a quick google search will show that other literal interpreters [] with Bullinger.  

To summarize:  The article should be changed to reflect the fact that some literal interpreters of the Bible do not think the Earth is roughly 6000 years old.   Vacuous Poet