Everything that God has created is undoubtedly beautiful. As for discussion, however, it cannot be avoided. Indeed, the greatest joy of mankind is to see how wonderful the works of God are, and to share this admiration. This, incidentally, is exactly what the heavenly hosts do as they unceasingly praise God.

Furthermore, it is important for us to be able to distinguish the works of God from the stereotypes of our fallen nature, and to see the beauty of the Creator's actions in what seems strange to us. For He Himself said that His ways are not our ways, and His thoughts are not our thoughts.

Your question is one of the most frequently asked by people reading the Bible. We will answer with a quote from the magazine "Holy Joy", which published a series of articles on the book of Genesis where this question was examined:

But there is also another tree in the garden, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The meaning of this image is not easy to understand. Let us recall what we discussed last time about a characteristic linguistic device—two antonyms connected by the conjunction "and". This does not mean "this and that", but "everything contained between the two poles". The poles in this case are good and evil, that which is right and that which is wrong, that which corresponds to the Creator's design and that which does not correspond to it. Then, if "heaven and earth" in the first chapter of Genesis means "everything", the universe from the perspective of how (of what) it is constructed, then "good and evil" is "everything", the universe from the perspective of how (based on what principles) it is ordered. And the source of these principles is the Creator Himself. So, perhaps we need to know these principles, to learn them? Not exactly. For us, the word "knowledge" means acquiring information, "satisfying curiosity". In the Bible, this word has a completely different meaning. For the biblical authors, there is no abstract knowledge; knowledge is strength, power, and the word "knowledge" means "taking possession" (cf. Gen 4:1), taking power. Thus, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil symbolizes a very profound reality—the existence of meaning, an underlying spiritual foundation, and principles in the universe, and that these principles are established by God. It is precisely the conformity of the universe to these principles that gives it vitality; therefore, these two trees—of life and of the knowledge of good and evil—stand together in the midst of Paradise. What, then, does God's commandment not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil mean (vv. 16-17)? It is not a prohibition against learning these principles; it is a commandment not to lay claim to authority over these principles, not to claim that I, a human being, will determine these principles, that I myself will decide what is good and what is evil. Because then I would violate the foundations of the universe established by God, undermining its vitality, which brings about death. One can eat fruit either from the tree of life or from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

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.

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.