Not only do I remember it, I still stand by it. I guess you don't think you have to actually say what your position is. To do that would open it up to dismantling. I am well familiar with that technique. The naturalists use it extensively.
"It was the fact that the word “create” doesn’t appear (you’re attempting to insert it) in this description of the fourth day that prompted my request to research the words used but since you either haven’t or cannot understand what you’ve read its clear that you need time to do a bit of catch up research."
Scripture uses the same word 'asah' for the sun, moon and stars in verse 16 as it does in verse 26 when man is created. It then uses the term 'bara' for the creation of man in verse 27. Now, how could man be 'asah' first and then 'bara' second? Isn't it your contention that only 'bara' is creation and 'asah' is something else? Explain this.
Then what do we do with Gen 2:3 when God blessed the 7th Day of his 'bara' and 'asah'? Don't you mean that he blessed some day in the 20 billionth year after finishing his 'bara' and 'asah' since you don't believe in 7 literal days. Is Scripture lying here or are you?
"Come back when you have and we’ll have something to discuss."
You should be trying to trying to get out of this conversation as fast as you can. The longer you talk, the more inconsistencies in word treatment we will find.
You still don’t know what you’re talking about. Vs. 16 and 26 don’t speak of “create”. 2:3 shows there is a difference.
You’re trying to wing it and it doesn’t work. You still don’t know what you’re talking about. Try again.