No, the idea of 6 days of work and a day of rest is a symbol of God's creation.
God commanded the Hebrews how they should celebrate Passover -- it's a symbolic celebration of how the real Passover occurred. They don't actually leave their homes and cross the Red Sea every year.
In Leviticus 23:42-43, God commanded the Hebrews to dwell in booths (Sukkot or Succoth) for 7 days to commemorate how they dwelt in booths when God liberated them from Egypt. Yet the Hebrews wandered in the desert for over 40 years! By your reasoning, the holiday should last 40 years.
Do you not realize that many parts of the Bible are symbolic?
As I said earlier, YEC is not a scientific problem, it's a problem of interpreting scripture.
Do you not realize that many parts of the Bible are symbolic?
Do you actually think that we do not understand what a symbol is, so that when we read something like, "He will cover you with his feathers, and under his wings you will find refuge", that we therefore believe that God is a literal bird?
Do you really think that we do not understand the difference between historical narrative and poetry, or the difference between a symbol and the thing represented?
In fact a symbol is only intelligible because it has first has a literal meaning, as your examples of the Passover and the Festival of Booths amply prove. Otherwise, you've got something like the Bill Cosby routine where God tells Noah to build an Ark, and Noah says, "What's an Ark"?
So, in our ancient historical narrative describing the Creation, prior to which Creation presumably there was no such thing as "day", the ancient author first introduces the term, and carefully defines it:
"4 And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day."Now, please tell me, oh Great Cosby, what does "day" symbolize in its first use, and why bother defining it if everybody already knew what it was?
Do you care to posit a response to my question in #407? How would you, the ancient author, have made it any clearer if that's what you intended to convey?
Cordially,