You know the drill by now. The creation story in Genesis 2 appears to contradict the creation story in Genesis 1. But if the events in Genesis 2 are a different series of events that follow what is written before, then those apparent contradictions would disappear. Genesis 1 could be about the universe (the heavens and the earth) Genesis 2 could be about the Garden of Eden, an earth like paradise isolated from the rest of the universe and it's creation could have happened after the universe was fully formed. Man, as referred to in Genesis 1:26, could be the origin of the human race on earth (call them 6th day man). Adam and Eve, as referred to in Genesis 2, could be an couple of incarnated angelic beings who become human after the fall and join the pre-Adamic race on earth.
In my particular religious upgringing, it was always taught that the creation stories were metaphorical, and not to be taken as a literal history. Although I don't really consider myself a believer any longer, I do recognize that Christan culture forms a part of my history and feeds in to what I am today. Religion is hard-wired into the socially evolved human primate brain, and it will never wither away or be displaced by pure reason. (Attempts to do so merely guarantee it will pop up in unexpected or dangerous ways.) So, yeah, go ahead and point out all the inconsisitencies of the bible. They are all there in black and white. In the end you will gain exactly zero. Humans are both rational and irrational, and you must find a way to integrate the irrational into human culture. Trying to drive it underground simply means it will pop up in dangerous and uncontrolled formats. New age occultism and fascination with Eastern mysticsm are directly related to the decline of mainstream religions. Half the people who cite Rand or objectivism in the Republican Party, to give one glaring example, are affiliated with dominionist Christianity or other irrationalist leanings. They are already corrupted. I take it from your signature that you have Objectivist tendencies. I would merely point out the philosophy of individualism is idealist (idealist = irrational). It attempts to promote an understanding of human nature that does not conform to its observed reality.
Ok, I'm with you. That could very well be. Is my interpretation correct? Should I go back to the drawing board?
Could be, but I think the most obvious observation is that these are likely the works of two separate authors, later cobbled together in an attempt to craft a single creation story. I mean this as a complement to the work, actually, and my view comes from studying these chapters under the guidance of my (explicitly Jewish Orthodox) Bible as lit teacher. Rather than covering up the potential contradictions, the compiler left the problematic issues intact for future generations to debate. I actually find that quite admirable, and uniquely Jewish (Hebrew scriptures, in my mind, seem to welcome discussion and debate with open arms). If your interpretation is correct, then there is another issue to consider: does this mean that there were multiple origins of mankind, and that only the descendants of Adam and Eve are subject to the fall? You would not be the first to suggest this, so please take this as an extension of your story rather than a criticism of it.
The theme of creation appears throughout the Old Testament. There's hints of a creation story in the Psalms, in Job, in Isaiah, in Ezekiel, and even in the apocrypha. The Jewish people encountered various cultures over time and incorporated these cultures' creation mythologies into their own scriptures. However, it's good to distinguish between form and content. The stories are different, but the message is uniform, which is that Yahweh is the supreme creator and everything was in harmony until man chose to disharmonize himself with his creator. It's clear that the author of Genesis 2 hadn't intended his story to be read as "history," because there are many literary and religious devices woven into the story.
