Yes you are. There is no progression in the Scripture for the formation of the earth, but there are progressive steps of the creative days. Hard to believe you can't see that.
"But I will assume that you haven't found what create, set, or form mean as used in Genesis and that rather prevents us going further to my point."
You would be wrong, but I understand why you won't get to your point.
"In your previous post you mistook one term for another and as long as you do we're talking about two different things."
So, your point is that the sun, moon, stars and galaxies were created in verse 1. Isn't that what I said in post 202? It's clear that you are engaging in obfuscation to avoid the weakness of your position.
"As for my assuming that the earth was formed in a molten staten state, do you assume it wasn't?"
No, I don't assume it was formed in a molten state. There is absolutely no scriptural reason to do that, only man's argument for doing so and that's the problem we are discussing.
"Are you keeping score by tallying assumptions? Two for you and three for me, the lessor wins something?"
You simply aren't paying attention. I continue to point out the growing number of undocumented assumptions that you must invoke to claim a scriptural foundation for your OEC claim vs the single assumption in a YEC claim. More assumptions means more compromises of Scripture to get to a demonstrably weaker OEC position. Please try to remember this.
"If you are not going to do what I asked as a favor to aid our discussion, O.K., but if you don't understand the terms used in Genesis, it going to make it very difficult to continue."
I told you I did it and asked you to go ahead and make your point. You refuse. It's clear you equate 'understanding the terms' with your particular position as a defined truth. If I don't accept your position, I don't 'understand the terms', by definition. Should the discussion get to the point where we simply disagree on the meaning of the terms, your position falls apart because it is based on a defined truth and you are trying to avoid that. Anybody can see that.
No, not by definition. You simply do not understand the terminology. That's no one's fault but yours.
You seem so anxious to score points that you’re unable to understand what I’ve said or understand a simple question but so be it.
You also said this in post #202 but I guess you don’t remember:
“The third assumption OECs must make is that the reference to creating the sun, moon and stars on the 4th Day does not represent an actual act of creation, but merely an act of revealing.”
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. Come back when you have and we’ll have something to discuss.
We aren’t asking too much are we? My tagline was made with that in mind.