ok, let me start by saying that "creationism" is a very modern and very loaded word, and i think we might be getting some wires crossed on a couple of the nuances, so i'll offer a few thoughts.

first of all, to strip out biblical literalism is not the same as stripping out the idea that yahweh created the world.  after all, the hebrew bible was inspired by yahwism, not vice versa. 

let me address your statements one at a time based on the evidence i've encountered.

assuming you mean a literal solar (or, in the case of jews, lunar) week, i don't think you'd encounter fierce opposition, certainly not at the level of our present-day creationists, especially if the jew had embraced a hellenistic or semi-hellenistic cosmogony.  i'm not saying no one would try to argue with you, but imo it's unlikely any would be offended.

pretty much ditto above.

here you would likely encounter fierce opposition, not because it threatens the integrity of the text, but because it threatens the jewish idea of man's special place in creation.  it's not a question of biblical literalism but of religious anthropology, which has been a central element of judaism throughout its history.

this of course is unacceptable, but not because it contradicts the text.  in fact, let me emphasize that a first-century jew (if he's educated) would be far more likely to argue for god's existence using plato, aristotle, or even philo, than he would using the hebrew bible, especially if you were a gentile.  the hebrew bible is not meant to be an apologetic for god's existence, and besides, it's not meant for gentiles anyway, so it would be almost a source of shame to share it with you. 

if you were a fellow jew, however, he'd be more likely just to cuss you out at best or try to have you excommunicated or even arrested at worst.

that sounds right, but good luck explaining evolution to jesus, or anyone from the first century!

What gets me is the mistake that even some atheists make.

They falsely, like theists will say, "You cant prove or disprove" which misses the point , even if I agreed with that statement, which I don't.

The word can also be applied to time frame in regards to past, present and future.

My current position is that I am an outright and strong atheist as far a past and present claims. But "technically" I can only look at the future and call myself an agnostic atheist. It means only that my position might change with changing data, although highly unlikely. I still hold the "off" position in any case.

As far as not being able to disprove something, that is not the way logic works. One reading this cant disprove it if I claimed I was getting my dick sucked by Heidi Clume right now. "Technically" it is possible since I exist and Heidi Clume exists, but would anyone have a problem saying "bullshit"? There are lots of things we "technically" cant disprove, but don't waste much time trashing absurd claims. Which is why the burden of proof being on the claimant is a much better use of logic.