How about Genesis 2:4 as a reference to all of the creation week?
How about “day of the LORD” used to refer to periods (even years) of God’s actions and interventions, such as in the end times?
I like to use Hosea 6:2 because it refutes the ubiquitous YEC claim that YOM with an ordinal number always refers to a “normal 24-hour” day.
After two days he will revive us; on the third day he will restore us, that we may live in his presence. — Hosea 6:2 (NIV)
And to emphasize that these are not “normal 24 hour days”, the NLT translates the same text more idiomatically without any numbers at all:
In just a short time he will restore us, so that we may live in his presence. — Hosea 6:2 (NLT)
You might want to start with D. A. Carson’s Exegetical Fallacies, not only because it is a non-technical work which doesn’t require a lot of Hebrew and Greek background but because you will find his many examples of popular fallacies an excellent introduction to why we care about exacting exegesis of the original languages and good hermeneutics. It is probably the introductory primer that I recommend most often to help laypersons understand why good Biblical scholars have to be language and culture scholars.
This may provide a good non-technical introduction to the topic in relation to Hosea 6:2: BiblicalStudies.org.uk: When is a Day Not a Day? An Exegetical Note on Hosea 6:2 by Robert I. Bradshaw
And here’s a good overall introduction which brings back a lot of fond memories from my younger years working with Gleason Archer and Carl F. H. Henry. Gleason was quite adamant about this topic—and he had a lot of influence because his OT Introduction was a very popular standard textbook in Bible colleges and seminaries for many years. (And if someone hastily decides that Archer must have been a flaming liberal, he was one of the major conservative scholars to leave Fuller Theological Seminary after colleague Harold Lindsell published The Battle for the Bible, which claimed that liberalism had invaded Fuller and various other schools.)
(1) I’m not sure why that would be confusing. Moreover, is it confusing that the Bible says that Jesus is a door, a road, and a lamb? (Which is he? Isn’t he a man?)
(2) Why would the fact that God created time preclude him from making statements which might confuse us/you/someone? Indeed, Jesus said that he spoke many things in hard to understand ways in order to hide the meaning. (Remember how the disciples got very frustrated about that?) I’m not saying that every revelation in the Bible is meant to be confusing. I’m saying that you should not assume that the “easiest” interpretation of a passage—in your view–is automatically the correct one. I’m saying that easy clarity is NOT always the goal.
I too believe the Biblical text says what it means—but that doesn’t prevent finite and fallible humans from misunderstanding it. Secondly, notice the Mosaic Law’s commands to Israel to observe the sabbath YOM as the seventh YOM after six YOM, the sabbatical YEAR after six years, and the Year of Jubilee after seven weeks of years (seven sevens of years.) The purpose is not to emphasize YOM but to emphasize SEVENS as reminding Israel of God’s completed work serving as a pattern for them. (The number seven is the number of completeness.) The exact duration of a YOM in Genesis 1 has no impact on the significance and meaning of those sevens.
Meanwhile, I’ll step back from a more general and didactic approach to YOM and Genesis 1 and mention that I am personally fine with “the YOM in Genesis 1 are basically days in a normal sense”. That is because I view Genesis 1 according to its genera. It is a carefully constructed multi-level set of chiastic structures meant to convey a number of themes, none of which necessarily conform to what someone in the year 2021 might expect of a scientific and chronological presentation. I would compare it to the song lyrics or a poem or other classic literary quotation which might appear in the author’s PREFACE to a book. It sets the tone of what follows and establishes basic themes, in this case a direct refutation of the paganism of neighboring cultures who attributed different realms of the world (e.g. the sea, the moon, the plants) to various deities of a pantheon. No, in Genesis 1, the God of Israel is the sole creator and master of all. Rather than presenting all of that in a “dry” fact-by-fact presentation, Genesis 1 uses a complex literary structure to make profound points in beautiful ways.
I can still remember when a lot of the classic old books one was assigned to read at university started with a passage from Dante, a few lines from a Shakespeare play, or even the Baghadvagita. Could they be misunderstood by a reader thousands of years from today? Yes. (Even so, some would probably demand “the normal and literal meaning” and thereby misunderstand their genres and their purpose within the larger work.)
There are many good reasons why so many Biblical scholars disagree with you about Genesis 1. I would encourage you to explore some of the best exegetical commentaries in order to understand the hermeneutical issues.