Actually, I don’t hold to either of these views, but I don’t want to belabor the point. I’d rather just move to directly addressing the solution you are offering.
I take your point about “relative terms” and allowing for “elasticity in language.”
As for your four points, they all raise the question of what constitutes a “creation.” In Genesis 1 we see one new thing created after another, but after Genesis 1 we only see more of the same things being created (e.g. more rivers, more stars, more mountains). That, to me, evokes the dividing line of Gen 2:1-3. But I do not want to debate this with you as that, too, could be a digression.
The main thing I want to ask you is this:
Having granted that Genesis 2:1-3 might have a “limited” meaning (a la Jesus being “alone”) what then is that meaning for you - because it can’t mean nothing, right?
And if it means more than nothing, why isn’t that limitation acknowledged in definitions of creatio continua? (I did not limit my research on the term to the one link you gave, and, while I found slightly differing definitions, I did not find any of them acknowledging that Genesis 2:1-3 might impose some limitation, however small, on the doctrine. If this is the case, then has not Genesis 2:1-3 been stripped clean of its primary thrust?
In summary, I need to come up with some reasonable amount of meaning for Genesis 2:1-3; I can’t just let creatio continua make me ignore Genesis 2:1-3, can I? In all that you said here, I did not see where you defined what you think the limited meaning of Genesis 2:1-3 actually is for you. If this solution to the conflict is to make sense to me, I need to understand what you understand Genesis 2:1-3 to be saying. I did not hear in anything you said a way for me to view creatio continua differently - and that’s not necessarily a problem. But if the only thing I am to change is my view of Genesis 2:1-3, what, specifically is that change? What do you see as the passage’s scope in terms of cessation, and what limitation, if any, does this passage place on creatio continua? And if Gen 2:1-3 places no limitation at all on creatio continua, are we not just saying that the latter trumps the former?
(I apologize for the redundancies in this comment, but I erred in that direction to increase the probability that my perception of the dilemma might be better appreciated. Thanks for indulging me.)