The only way you will be able to see if in fact there is a discrepancy in Genesis 1 and 2 is to take your time

and fully
read what I wrote and follow the links to their respective stories. Take your time, please.
Hebrew scholars of standing have always regarded this to be the case. Thus, Professor James Barr, Regius Professor
of Hebrew at the University of Oxford, has written:

“Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class
university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their
readers the ideas that:

(a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we
now experience

(b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology
from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story

(c) Noah's flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life
except for those in the ark.

Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the ‘days’ of creation to be long
eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local
Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.”

(Excerpted from http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c024.html – a great synopsis of why Genesis chapters 1-

11 are to be taken historically. The Bible interprets the Bible; it is not open for preference of what an individual
says it means to them. This is a must read, if you disagree with this thesis, then you have thrown out all of Biblical
hermeneutics for the past 3,000 years that no scholar would do [except those “scholars” who subscribe to the
liberal redaction criticism philosophy]. In addition, is Genesis 1-11 poetry or myth?)

(Read http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c022.html for yourself. All these questions you have, or

reservations you hold, have been answered. It’s just that YOU have to take the time to investigate them).

TWO CREATION ACCOUNTS?

Genesis 2:19 – How can we explain the difference in the order of creation events between Genesis 1 and 2?

Problem: Genesis 1 declares that animals were created before humans, but Genesis 2:19 seems to reverse this,
saying, “the Lord God formed every beast of the field… and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them,”
implying Adam was created before they were.

Solution: Genesis 1 gives the order of events; Genesis 2 provides more content about them. Genesis 2 does not
contradict chapter 1, since it does not affirm exactly when God created the animals. He simply says He brought the
animals (which he had previously created) to Adam so that he might name them. The focus in chapter 2 is on the
naming of the animals, not on creating them. Genesis 1 provides the outline of events, and chapter 2 gives details.
Taken together, the two chapters provide a harmonious and more complete picture of the creation events. The
differences, then, can be summarized as follows:

Genesis 1
i) Chronological Order
ii) Outline
iii) Creating Animals
Genesis 2
i) Topical Order
ii) Details
iii) Naming Animals
Genesis 2, then, does not present a creation account at all but presupposes the completion of God’s work of creation
as set forth in chapter 1. The first three verses of Genesis 2 simply carry the narrative of chapter 1 to its final and
logical conclusion, using the same vocabulary and style as employed in the previous chapter. It sets forth the
completion of the whole primal work of creation and the special sanctity conferred on the seventh day as a symbol
and memorial of God’s creative work. Verse 4 then sums up the whole sequence that has just been surveyed by
saying, “These are the generations of heaven and earth when they were created, in the day that Yahweh God made
heaven and earth.”

Having finished the overall survey of the subject, the author then develops in detail one important feature that has
already been mentioned: the creation of man. Kenneth Kitchen, in his book Ancient Orient (p.117), says the
following:

“Genesis 1 mentions the creation of man as the last of a series, and without any details, whereas
in Genesis 2 man is the center of interest and more specified details are given about him and his
setting. Failure to recognize the complementary nature of the subject-distinction between a
skeleton outline of all creation on the one hand, and the concentration in detail on man and his
immediate environment on the other, borders on obscurantism.”

Kitchen then draws on the analogy of Egyptian inscriptions like the Karnak Poetical Stela of Thutmose III, the
Gebel Barkel Stela, and those royal inscriptions from Urartu that ascribe the defeat of the nation’s foes to their
patron god, Haldi, and then repeat the same victories in detail as achieved by the reigning king of Urartu. Kitchen
then adds:

“What is absurd when applied to monumental Near Eastern texts that had no prehistory of hands
and redactors should not be imposed on Genesis 1 and 2, as is done by uncritical perpetuation of
speculations of a nineteenth-century systematization of speculations by eighteenth-century
dilettantes lacking [I think he just bagged you John, but I could be wrong?], as they did, all
knowledge of the forms and usages of Ancient Oriental literature.”

Quite clearly then, Genesis 2 is built on the foundation of Genesis chapter 1. In fact, Genesis 2 presupposes Genesis
1. This distinction is very clear when the rule of language that is applied to all other ancient histories is applied to
the Genesis account. However, all too often a different standard is applied to the Bible, one, that, no one would
apply to any other writing of antiquity. [This is not written to be debated, I merely answered, in detail, your
supposed contradiction in Genesis 1 and 2.] For more information, look into this debate on this exact subject that
appears at TrueOrigins.org: http://www.trueorigin.org/9807.htm