Did the creation last 7 days or 7 eras?
Some believers are influenced by unfounded "scientific" hypotheses over the origin of the world and humans. In the book of Genesis when it states that the creation was completed in seven days, they affirm that this is referring to seven eras or periods of 7,000 years each, not seven 24 hour days.
I understand that scientific individuals, who are antitheist, will create any hypothesis which denies God, because in the end to hypothesize you don't have to present any scientific proof. What I don't understand is how some Bible believers use these types of hypotheses to affirm such things. If it was a personal hypothesis I could understand, anyone can hypothesize without biblical proof. What can not be done is to wield such hypotheses and then say, "It's Biblical".
The days of the creation can not be "eras" of 7,000 years as affirmed by these people, because according to the Bible, the vegetation was created the third day while the sun was created the fourth day. If these days were "eras" of 7,000 years each, we would have to admit that the lush vegetation of that time, endured 7,000 years without one ray from the sun, which is illogical and absurd.
To add insult to injury, it's logical to believe if God established one day of rest of 24 hours, it's because the other days of work were of 24 hours. Since the Bible states that God rested on the seventh day and blessed it and since then the Sabbath is kept for a period of 24 hours, you don't have to make a huge mental effort to comprehend that the holy day was equal in duration as the other days. Besides, it's not reasonable to believe that God worked 42,000 years (6 "eras" of 7,000 years each) and then rested only 24 hours.
Others more stubborn want to believe that the rest spoken of here
also lasted 7,000 years. This is absurd, because Adam was cast out from
The hypotheses in question are wrongfully called scientific, because true science only believes that which can be proved and none of these can be proved by those who call themselves scientists, besides the fact that they speak without proof. These things are merely hypothesis, fantasies without any factual base, forcing the issues against the grain, qualifying it as "scientific".