There are quite a few heretics. It explicitly gives people’s names, who begot whom, whom they begot, how long they lived, for some of them what they invented… until the story reaches the patriarchs of the nation. The Hebrew year (5785) is based on a calculation of biblical chronology. How else can this be understood?

To the honorable youth in wisdom and old in years,
and in the language of the Egyptians: “avrek” —
a father in years and tender in wisdom.

When the Holy One, blessed be He, carried us on eagles’ wings—literally—did you hold tightly to the eagle’s feathers so as not to fall off its wings in flight?
And with what seat belt did you tie the children and the elderly to the wings?
How did you not get seriously and disgustingly dirty from the droppings that an eagle normally releases while flying?
And what “memorial” do you make every year on Sukkot for the foul smell of eagle sweat?
When you came to the Land of Israel to conquer what God commanded to conquer,
and you saw, of course, cities great and fortified up to heaven—literally—
how did you climb to the height of heaven?
What kind of oxygen mask did we wear when we went up on the walls from that height where the air ran out?
After all, those are problems we would already have run into in something much lower than the height of heaven—literally.

Maybe at some point you heard of parables?
Of Little Red Riding Hood stories?

All of these are interpretive considerations, whether correct or not. Interpretation is something one can argue about, and someone who does not accept your interpretations is not necessarily a heretic who does not count toward a minyan.

As for the words of Eshkol the foolish heretic, who writes Hebrew words in Yiddish spelling and thinks that if he found a few figures of speech and parables in the book that means the whole book is not to be taken literally—I won’t respond.
But to Rabbi Michi, I’ll ask again: what reasonable and honest allegorical interpretation can be given to the Torah’s chronology without being considered a heretic, and in your opinion can the rest of the Five Books be interpreted that way too while still counting toward a minyan?

I already answered that. I wrote that it really does not matter what the interpretation is, so long as we are dealing with an interpretive dispute and not with a denial of the text itself. So I really am not interested in discussing interpretations. Departures from the plain meaning are very common among the Sages and other commentators as well, and they go much further than the departures that would be needed here.
I am close to deleting this thread.

What is “recognition of the text itself”? To regard it as binding or holy?
If Reuven were to come and say: “The entire Torah was spoken by Moses on his own initiative, and no verse ever departs from its plain meaning, and everything told in it that does not seem plausible to me never happened and was just a parable, and really Moses did not say it either, but rather many different authors and editors whose writings were carelessly combined in the end into one book—but I recognize the text itself (?)” — does Reuven count toward a minyan?
This is a clearly halakhic question. I did not understand the point of the deletion threat.

First of all, the deletion has nothing to do with whether the question is halakhic, but with the way the discussion is being conducted. The discussion here began to deteriorate into the personal realm, and that is why I wrote that I am considering deleting it.
As for your question itself, yes, we are speaking about recognizing it as a text given by the Holy One, blessed be He, and that it is holy and binding. But the question of what interpretation one gives that text is left to each individual. Obviously, if someone were to interpret that the whole text was produced by monkeys jumping on a keyboard, but nevertheless it is binding and holy, that would not fall into this category. But that is not a real option. It is just a hypothetical case. Wherever we are dealing with interpretation of the divine text, it enters the legitimate realm. Do not look for mathematical criteria, because you will not find them. We are dealing with a line that is not sharp.
Your example regarding the chronology is very far from the gray line. It is entirely within the legitimate realm. And if you have interpretive arguments against that interpretation, you should raise them and try to persuade the person opposite you of your interpretation. If he is persuaded, excellent, and if not—then if it is just a refusal to recognize the text, he is indeed a heretic. But if he holds a different interpretation because he thinks differently—that is entirely legitimate.

O.Y.,
for example, that the people did not live that long, but rather the tribe was called by their name for such-and-such a number of years.