It is the Achille's heal of literalism, at least it should be. Every detail needs be sound for the whole to be literal and true. The problem is the mind is very good at dodging.
The opening of the whole book again is a good example of this. The formulaic structure (7 day/Sabbath) used by the P author was more important than logic much less scientific accuracy. He was writing poetry with a religious agenda. That has been discussed here in some depth before. His chiastic approach of 3 days followed by corresponding 3 days created a seeming discrepancy where light exists prior to luminaries.
The original writers saw no issue as it was poetic allegory. However, later readers, as separate mind do, didn't understand this and tended to read secret meaning into the text. For many readers of the late 2nd temple period, the "light" must have been more than, and distinct from, physical light from the sun/moon/stars. The very popular concept of emanations of God lent to the personification of this "light" from Genesis 1 into a Logos, Son of God. Jewish and Christian writers embraced this idea.
old thread:
Light
IOW, when the text defied logical, literal understanding, it was reinterpreted as mystical. Hence from a poetic narrative glitch evolved the words and theology of John 1:1.
In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the Light of all mankind. 5 The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome[a] it.