Traditional interpretation asserts the following: the light created by God on the first day should be understood not as light from celestial bodies, but as something else. Prior to the formulation of the Big Bang theory, most commentators believed that this referred to light in a different, spiritual sense of the word (as this concept is used, for example, in the Gospel, referring to the Light of Christ) — or something else entirely. Currently, there is a popular view that this refers to the light originating from the initial flash that accompanied the Big Bang, preserved in the form of what is known as cosmic microwave background radiation. This is indeed light that does not emanate from celestial bodies, yet it propagates throughout the Universe. Thus, modern physics helps us to understand elements within Revelation that could not be comprehended during earlier stages of scientific development. However, the understanding of this primordial light as a spiritual light, distinguishing truth from the darkness of falsehood, also remains profoundly relevant. Furthermore, it is important to remember that prior to the creation of the luminaries, we likely cannot speak of days and nights in the physical sense of the words. The Hebrew word "yom," like its corresponding Greek word "hemera," possesses a broader meaning and can denote a period of time of indefinite duration, unified by a specific event or characteristic. In this sense, the Bible speaks, for example, of the "day of wrath" and the "day of salvation," adding that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. Therefore, strictly speaking, celestial bodies are not required to separate the days of creation from one another: these may refer to periods or stages.

Biblical texts existed for a long time in the form of separate fragments, and only later were they gathered into unified scrolls (and eventually into a book). At the same time, the compilers often included in the collection several dissimilar accounts of the same event, which possessed equal spiritual significance and originated from the same authoritative source. Often the divine inspiration of the text was recognized by a divinely inspired editor "after the fact." In particular, this applies to the accounts of the creation of the world and humanity. Genesis 1 and Genesis 2–3 are two parallel accounts of different origins, speaking of the creation from different perspectives. The first chapter speaks of the sequence of events, while the second and third focus only on their logical connection and meaning, without addressing chronology. As for historical chronology in antiquity, each nation had its own. Some reckoned time by kings, others by Olympiads, and still others in a different manner... Therefore, there is no universal chronology. However, with an accuracy of up to a few decades, the chronologies remain close to one another.

There is no difference between a "woman" and a "wife"; that is not the issue. What differs are the two accounts of the creation of the world and of man, which comprise the 1st and 2nd chapters of the Book of Genesis, respectively.

The oral tradition, originating from Moses, existed in profound antiquity in several variants; they were recorded quite late, around the 9th to 7th centuries B.C. One variant of the creation account was recorded in the Northern (Israelite) Kingdom, the other in the Southern (Judean) Kingdom. It is possible that there also existed separate sub-versions, likewise reflected in the written tradition. During the compilation of the final redaction of the text, which was completed in the period of the Second Temple (late 6th century B.C.), both variants of the account were included in the text, because they differ significantly and mutually complement each other.

The first account speaks more to the sequence of events during the creation of the world; its main idea is progressive creation, where increasingly complex created things appear not simultaneously, but one after another. The first account concludes with the words of  2:3 (the division of the text into chapters and verses was done in the Middle Ages and is not always felicitous). The second account, conversely, speaks predominantly of the meaning and "inner" logic of the creation of the world, abstracting itself from the sequential chronology of events.

This is particularly evident in  2:5. The first account speaks of the creation of man, stating that he was created in the image and likeness of God on the sixth day of creation, that humanity as a phenomenon encompasses both male and female, and that man was appointed to have dominion over creation. The second account conveys that the creation of man gives meaning to the entirety of creation, that man consists of spirit and flesh, that he is endowed with freedom and responsibility before God, and that human beings (male and female) are created in need of one another and mutually complement each other.

The word "rib" in the modern Russian translation sounds traditional, but is highly unfortunate. In the original text and in translations into ancient languages, the woman was created from the "side" or "flank" of the man; into modern language, it would be better translated not as "rib", but, say, as "aspect". As you can see, there is no contradiction here, but rather a mutual complementarity of two accounts presented from different perspectives.