"The reason the whole moon thing would have to be wrong is simply because Enoch would have been 6 when Methesulah his son was born, this is if we tranlate the years into moon phases. Know if somebody was making this up I don't think they would be that dumb after doing all the other in such detail too.
Your point is well taken. We have an extraordinary claim without any other evidence
and without further explanation.
There is no excuse for the Bible's lying about Methuselah's age or that of Enoch, Lamech, Noah and the others.
So, to say the Bible is not lying, I try to see if they might have sometimes used the moon's repetitive full moon as a "year" marker
and made a typo in the case of Enoch. It is early enough in the Bible that they might have just been in the process of transitioning from one primitive way of counting years to another -- from Enoch being 65 "years" old at fatherhood to most of his descendants being at least 182 "years." Most of the others
would be old enough to be fathers if we figure about 13 moon cycles per modern year.
Do you think there is inexactness and inconsistency, incompleteness and primitive thinking in the Bible? Or are you impressed with its exactness, consistency, completeness and advanced degree of thinking?
I see no strong evidence they had a modern year in mind when they wrote the ages of Enoch or Methuselah, and we have plenty of reason to think they did not have a modern year in mind -- it has never been duplicated or explained, and in fact very little detail is even available about those individuals. Imagine Methuselah living 969 years and we know almost nothing about him.
It's all been said before.