Fine, I accept your assertion that there are 3 meanings for the word. Thats not the point of our discussion though. Words only have meaning when placed in the context of a sentence. Which of the three meanings are we to choose from the context of the passages? Your choice for the meaning is inconsistent with the context of the passage in question ... and you arrive at your choice NOT from the textual context ... but by the extra-Biblical evidence you deem relevant.
You're not engaged in Biblical interpretation, you're engaged in shoehorning your preunderstanding ONTO the text. You have made assertions about separating day and night which are not in 1.14.
and referred to an indeterminate block of time as corroborated by all physical evidence
You choose to filter your interpretation of the text with external evidence (which incidently is fine if you are talking about forming a Systematic Theology; but we are talking about Biblical Theology here); and in fact you have made the text say much more that it does. You assume the sun HAS to be the source of the light in 1.5 ... the text doesn't provide any detail to support that assumption. It just says there was day and night, and it says that GOD separated the day from the night; thats all it says.
especially when both interpretations are equally consistent with the plain language
You're interpretation imposes details that are not in the text and those details come from outside the text. By definition, that is moving away from the plain meaning of the text.
Do you believe the Earth is 6000 years old?
No.
Do you believe the Earth is 4.5 billion years old?
Of all the knowledge in the universe, what percentage of that total do you claim to know?
I actually think your summary of our respective positions is accurate. I just wanted to know where you were coming from. And I do believe the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, and purport to know 100% the knowledge in the universe, even though my girlfriend will assure you I really don’t much about anything.