Genesis 2:4-25

I'm not even done with the story of creation, and already I owe somebody a big apology. Like a lot of Christians, I like to think that I know the Bible pretty well. I got into an argument with someone once over whether God made man first, or He made animals first. I said God made the animals first, and then made people. Genesis 1 is clear on this point. First came the beasts (Genesis 1:25), then came the man (Genesis 1:27). The fossil record suggests nothing different.

I'm not so sure anymore. Genesis 2 rather clearly says that man came first (Genesis 2:7), and then God made the beasts in an attempt to make a companion for man (Genesis 2:19). Genesis 2 also says that man came before plants and trees (Genesis 2:7), and that after God made man, He planted a garden and placed the man that He made in it, and that then, out of the Earth, the Lord God made every tree grow. (Genesis 2:8-9). The same reversed order applies to the creation of fowls. It seems, therefore, that Genesis 2 disregards Genesis 1. Why?

Why do we have two stories of creation? As soon as we finish with the initial story of creation, we start in on another. And they are not the same.

For some reason, God changes His title from "God", used uniformly in chapter one, to "the Lord God" in chapter two. That seems insignificant, but it puzzles me. God has many names in the Bible: God, Lord, I Am, YHWH and others. Non-believers tell me that these changes in nomenclature reflects the assimilation of existing pagan religious teachings, and, in particular, the polytheistic beliefs that persisted in most cultures around the Mediterranean Sea until well into the fifth century AD. God or Lord God, in and of itself, is not a significant difference, but I'm going to be paying attention to the different labels given to the Lord throughout the Bible.

In addition to the identity of the creator, Genesis 2 differs from Genesis 1 in several other respects. Genesis 1 seems to show the Earth forming from the vast and formless waters. "And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." Genesis 1:2. Yet, Genesis 2 shows the Earth beginning as dry land, devoid of any water until "there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground." Genesis 2:6.

Most curious, however, is the apparent difference in the way woman was created. In Genesis 1, God makes man and woman at once.

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

But in Genesis 2, the Lord God first makes man, then notices that man is lonely. So He makes beasts to give him a companion. Genesis 2:18-20. Only after the beasts prove to be an inadequate set of companions does the Lord God decide to make woman. Genesis 2:21-25.

To be perfectly frank, it sounds like these two chapters were written by two different authors, from two different tribes, that followed two different traditions concerning how the world came into existence.

If one is a pure literalist and creationist, and believes that Genesis is the true, holy and scientific account of the making of our world, which version should one view as the literal truth? And why is the other version included as part of the scripture?