There are four literal interpretations of YOM (the Hebrew word for day). The four definitions are (1) a portion of the daylight hours (2) the entire daylight segment of a twenty-four-hour day, (3) a twenty-four-hour day, and (4) a long but finite time period. Unlike the modern Hebrew and English, biblical Hebrew had no other word for a finite era or epoch. The figure of speech of “a day is like a thousand years” in 2 Pt. isn’t an issue, it’s a simile; I don’t advocate that 2 Peter permits and old earth interpretation in Genesis. The four definitions of YOM are literal definitions; it’s unnecessary to say it’s non-literal. Also, the issue of a numerical adjective in front of YOM, there is no such rule or law in Hebrew grammar that necessitates that YOM following a numerical adjective must be the twenty-four-hour interpretation of YOM. The divisions of the days are “evening and morning” which signifies a division between the period of time (you’re going to have a hard time taking the text “literally” if you want to say there was evening and morning without a sun to make the distinguishing nature of evening and morning…). Even YEC’s must concede that the first three days of evening and morning are not used in the sense of referring to solar rotations, merely a division of time). William Wilson, in his Old Testament Word Studies, explains that YOM is “frequently put for a time in general, or for a long time; a whole period under consideration… Day [YOM] is also put for a particular season or time when any extraordinary event happens.” This is completely consistent with a kairological (differing from a chronological reading in that [Gr. kairos] it is a point of time specific to an event) reading of Genesis 1 as advocated by William Dembski in The End of Christianity.
The claim that YOM, attached to an ordinal, always refers to a twenty-four-hour period must also be questioned. Mark Van Bebber and Paul Taylor have said that 358 out of 359 times YOM is used in the Bible, outside of Genesis 1 and with an ordinal modifier, it represents a twenty-four-hour day. However, in examining each passage, the reader discovers that only 249 of these usages are the singular form of YOM, and all 249 are in the context of human activity or human history. But Genesis 1 speaks of divine activity or natural history, apart from, and unrelated to, human activity. The ordinal argument fails.
Let’s look at Exodus 20:11, which is often cited as doubly confirming twenty-four-hour times frames. This passage recognizes that the pattern of the creation week is to set up the formulation for our workweek. Hebrew scholar Gleason Archer notes, “By no means does this [Exodus 20.9-11] demonstrate that 24-hour intervals were involved in the first six days, any more than the eight-day celebration of the Feast of the Tabernacles proves that the wilderness wanderings under Moses occupied only eight days.” The workweek is merely a formulation of the divine creative miracles in the form of an analogy.
 Francis Brown, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs, The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon (1906; repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1997), 398-401; William Gesenius, Gesenius’ Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament Scriptures, trans. Samuel Prideaux Tregelles (1847; repr., Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979), 341-342; R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer Jr., and Bruce K. Waltke, eds., Theolgical Wordbook of the Old Testament (Chicago: Moody, 1980), 1:370-371.
 Ancient Hebrews most often marked 24-hour days with “evening to evening” and occasionally with “morning to morning.” Old Testament authors exclusively designated the passing of a 24-hour day in one of these two days. The “and was evening, and was morning” [literal word for word] expression in Genesis 1 is unique. Therefore, the repeated word-for-word translation of the Hebrew text used in Genesis 2 for the six creation days—“and was evening, and was morning”—alerts the reader that these days may have been periods other than 24-hours days. Hugh Ross, A Matter of Days (Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 2004), 76.
 William Wilson, Old Testament Word Studies (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 1978), 109.
 Mark Van Bebber and Paul S. Taylor, Creation and Time: A Report on the Progressive Creationist Book by Hugh Ross, 2d ed. David G. Hagopian (Gilbert, AZ: Eden Productions, 1996), 73.
 Hugh Ross, A Matter of Days, 74.
 Gleason Archer, “A Response to the Trustworthiness of Scripture in Areas Relating to Natural Science,” in Hermeneutics, Inerrancy, and the Bible, ed. Earl D. Radmacher and Robert D. Preus (Grand Rapids, MI: Academic Books, 1986), 329.