It doesn't work because both have a chronology in them. By "chronology" we mean a sequence of events, one following the other. The sequence of events in Genesis 2 is not tied to particular days, months, etc, but there is that sequence.
Plain reading of the text shows the contradictions. And it was discovered before this. Augustine of Hippo talked about it back in 400 AD. Jewish rabbis have been talking about it even longer. It was in 1715 that it was first suggested that there were 2 different stories.
It seems to be your opinion that if it's new it's not true. That's silly. That means we can't go to scripture and find new truths in it for our lives today.
Go to Barnes and Nobles and pick up any commentary on Genesis there. ALL them note the contradictions I have talked about and all of them say there are 2 creation stories.
the only problem with your theory is it lacks citation. In order to be a legitimate theory you need to quote all of these commentaries you suggest and use it to prove your point. If you have none then thats a problem. If it's new it's not true and if it's true it's not new. We are not that smart in other words, everything goes about in seasons. Even theology.
here is a link that offers some interesting opinions regarding the text....
Don’t Genesis 1 and 2 contain contradictory accounts of creation?-JMM
here is some quotes from the link
By the simple phrase “male and female created He them,” we are not told how they were made or if they were created at the same time. There is only the indefinite statement that they were created.
In the second account, when the writer elaborates the story of mankind’s origin, it is explained in detail how man and woman were formed respectively. This is not a matter of inconsistency, but of a general statement followed by a detailed account, which is a common literary device in ancient Semitic writing. (6/74)
The critical contention that vegetation did not appear until after the creation of man in the second account, in contradistinction to the first account when it precedes man, is another alleged problem that has a ready solution.
Pieters points out: “The writer cannot have supposed that the absence of a farmer would prevent the growth of wild grass and plants; for everyone knows the contrary. The lack of a farmer accounts for the lack of farm plants only.” (26/78)
Cassuto looks at the problem from a more general standpoint and offers a very plausible explanation of why vegetation would seem to follow man in the second account:
“Here it is explained how they were planted—a general statement followed by a detailed description. What does the gardener do when he plants a new garden? Although he produces new trees from the soil, he does not create new species. Even so the Lord God did: in order to make the garden He caused good trees to grow out of its soil, of the species that He had already created on the third day.” (6/76–77)
It also should be noted that, although the growth of the shrubs and sprouting of the herbs are represented here as being dependent upon the rain and the cultivation of the earth by man, it must not be understood that the words mean there was neither shrub nor herb before the creation of man. The shrub and the herb of the field do not embrace the whole of the vegetable productions of the earth. (18/77)
An interesting botanical fact is that the plants which were created on the third day are those that are capable of reproducing themselves afterwards by means of seed. This would, therefore, exclude those for which seed alone is insufficient, since they need something else in addition, something that had not yet come into the world.
There were not any thorns or thistles of the field, because Yahweh-Elohim had not caused it to rain upon the earth. The fields of grain had not yet sprung up, because there was not anyone to till the ground. Every summer, it is observed that, while the seeds of the thorns and thistles lie scattered on the ground in large numbers, not one of them springs up.
However, as soon as the rain falls, the earth is covered with thorns and thistles. As for the fields of grain, even though isolated specimens of barley and wheat do exist in a natural state, they are not found in great quantities in any one place. Fields of grain are produced only by man. (6/76)
Again, the alleged discrepancy fades under the application of logic and fact. The creation of animals after man in the second account proves a somewhat more difficult problem to resolve. However, this problem is not insurmountable, despite the critics’ allegations to the contrary.
Much of the problem results over the assumption by the critics that the sequence of chapter 2 is chronological, when it never was meant to be understood in that manner, or as Young puts it, “To insist upon a chronological order in chapter 2 is to place a construction upon the writer’s words that was never intended.” (38/56)
Taylor Lewis notes the same thing when he states, “The trouble springs from the assuming of a chronology, and endeavoring to find it, when the chief feature of this second narrative… is its wholly unchronological character.” (22/20)
Thus, the sequential difficulty with regard to the creation of man and animals, understood from this viewpoint, disappears. However, the problem of tense in 2:19 still gives some trouble.
Kitchen, in answer to Driver’s assertion that to render the first verb in 2:19, “had formed” would be “contrary to idiom,” writes:
“In Genesis 2:19, there is not explicit warrant in the text for assuming that the creation of animals here happened immediately before their naming (i.e., after man’s creation); this is eisegesis, not exegesis. The proper equivalent in English for the first verb in Genesis 2:19 is the pluperfect (‘had formed’
. Thus, the artificial difficulty over the order of events disappears.” (20/118)
The second account does not teach the creation of man before the animals. The chronological order is not what is being stressed. Chapter 2 has described the formation of Eden and the placement of Adam in the garden. It now speaks of man’s condition, demonstrating his need of a helpmate for himself, and that such a helpmate was not found among the animals.
The sequence is not chronological, since there is not any justification to import the idea of time into the second chapter. The initial account of creation had already informed us of the chronological sequence; therefore, verse 19 may correctly be paraphrased, “and the Lord God having formed out of the ground every beast of the field, and every fowl of heaven, brought them unto the man.” (38/56)
Kitchen develops this argument further and justifies the rendering “had formed”:
“As pluperfect meaning is included in the Perfective, we cannot a priori deny it to contextual equivalents of the Perfective. Hebraists and others should also remember that no special pluperfect tenses exist in the Ancient Semitic Languages (or in Egyptian), this nuance being covered by prefective forms and equivalents interpreted on context as here in Hebrew.” (20/119)
He further adds examples from Scripture to support this argument:
“The meaning of any Waw-Consecutive-Imperfective must be settled on context, not by appeal to abstract principles… For Hebrew Waw-Consecutive-Imperfectives that require a pluperfect standpoint in English, cf: Exodus 4:19 (picking up 4:12, not 18); Exodus 19:2 (‘having departed… and come… they pitched… ’ picks up 17:1, not 19:1; these examples, courtesy Dr. W.J. Martin.)
“Perhaps more striking, Joshua 2:22 (‘now the pursuers had sought them… ’
does not continue immediately preceding verbs. I Kings 13:12 (‘Now his sons had seen’ does not continue or follow from ‘their father said’
Driver, Treatise… p. 87, can only dispose of I Kings 13:12 by appealing to the versions.” (20/118–119 N. 19)
But even if Driver’s assertion that the pluperfect rendering is contrary to idiom is absolutely correct (which the above examples from Scripture tend to negate), there is still the explanation set forth by Cassuto and Archer, which gives a plausible reason for the apparent contradiction in the order of creation with regard to man and animals.
Archer concludes that the critics’ reasoning is faulty in regarding the account as chronological and point out the purpose for the order:
“It is a mistake to suppose that Genesis 2 indicates the creation of the animal order as taking place after the origin of man. It only states that the particular individuals brought before Adam for naming had been especially fashioned by God for this purpose. (It does not imply that there were no animals anywhere else in the world prior to this time.)” (4/118)
Elaborating on this line of thought, and carrying his explanation of the placement of vegetation in the creative order over to the placement of animals in the order of creation, Cassuto remarks:
“We find in the second section that the Lord God formed out of the ground the beasts and the flying creatures (v. 19); whereas the first section informs us that the beasts and the flying creatures were created before man. But in this case, too, we have to be careful not to regard the words of the Bible as though they were isolated and unrelated to their context.
“According to the continuation of the passage, the Lord God’s intention was to pass in review before the man all the species of animals in order that he should give them names, and endeavor to find among them a helper corresponding to him.
“The cattle, which should have been the first to be considered in this connection, are not mentioned at all among the kinds of animals that the Lord God then made. Yet we are explicitly told afterwards that Adam gave names to the cattle, the beasts and the flying creatures (v. 20).
“This implies that the cattle, owing to their nature, were already to be found in the garden with man, in agreement with the first section. But in order that all the various kinds of beasts and flying creatures that were scattered through the length and breadth of the world should also be represented in Adam’s abode, the Lord God formed, from the soil of the garden, beasts and flying creatures of every type previously created, and He brought them to the man.” (6/77)
Again, better solutions are found to the apparent problems between the two chapters than those posed by the critics.
