So I heard that a "Day" is actually translated "period [of time]"

First of time is still a questionmark in mainstream science. We can see that the notion to measure time by motion, as it is practiced in mainstream science is weak, in the sense that it is counterintuitive.To measure time by motion basically means that if the handles on the clock do not move, then no time passes. Certainly motion is a practical notion of time, because the earth moves round the sun reliably enough, but still, this does not correspond with the notion of time in our deeper experience.So we might search for other notions of time, which correspond more with our common knowledge of time. So the question is by what common knowledge do we discard the motion notion of time as insufficient?It seems our common knowledge says time passes regardless if something stands still or not. When one can observe something standing still, it stands still one moment to the next, time passes.My exegesis of the knowledge says, that the moments are decisions.So that gives a better notion of time, time as a sequence of decisions. The notion of time as it is used in history, like the decisive events in a nations history, the history of a nation as a sequence of decisions. Time may pass if there is no motion, but may time pass if there is no change at all, in any way at all? I think the answer is no, for every decision introduces new information into the universe, so at the least there must be a change in information for time to pass.Now let's see about the buildup of information in the universe. It is so that science can look very far into the past, very close to the beginning of the universe. That means that information now, was much created at the beginning of the universe. So much of everything what we see now, was decided to be the way it is, very close to the beginning of the universe. If that were not true, then we could not see very close to the beginning of the universe. So we get several big decisions near the start of the universe, which pretty much determine everything.So now what is left is to do exegesis on the bible and find out what a day means, in the sense of the notion of time as a sequence of decisions. It could still all be 100 percent accurate, if it is read literally, in respect to the deeper common notion of time.

You should look to when a thing becomes likely, because then the information is already existing, it's just in the future. When a plant grows from a seed, then the information for the "adult" plant is already present in the future of the seed.So if for example the earth is likely to be from the third day of the universe onward, but was not likely to be in the second day of the universe, then the third day is when the earth is created.So by this logic there is a distinction between the appearance of a thing, and the creation of a thing. The seed appears, and later on the "adult" plant appears, but the "adult" plant was already created before it appeared.And that is the way the bible could be literally accurate, a few days at the beginning of the universe at which things were created.But as before this depends on an interpretation of "day" in terms of decisions. To be fair this interpretation must also be within common knowledge, otherwise most people could not understand the bible.