Well, regarding the story of creation in the Bible, it's not clear that humans come "first" even in Genesis 2, if we follow the story. Here's how it goes: God creates Adam, then Eve, then they have two children, Cain and Abel. Then Cain kills Abel.

And then Cain says to God: "I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me." And God responds: "Not so; anyone who kills Cain will suffer vengeance seven times over." And God "put a mark on Cain so that no one who found him would kill him." (Genesis 4, 14-15)

But who are they? (whoever, anyone, no one) At this point in the story there should only be three people on earth: Adam, Eve and Cain. And in the following verse it says that "Cain made love to his wife".

Where does she come from?

One possible explanation is that the story of creation talks about one specific tribe, among other tribes that would pre-exist to the family of Adam, or at least co-exist.

Which is kind of relevant to the debate of different species of humans.

That's true, but that's Genesis 4. A continuation of the story in Genesis 2, but not really that creation story itself anymore. My comment is more about the structural similarity of the creation in Genesis 2 story to those "folk zoologists", than about what it means in the context of the rest of Genesis.

The fact that according to Genesis 4 other people did exist is a very good but in my opinion completely different issue.

Genesis 2:5 begins with: "When no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up...". "Bush of the field" and "small plant of the field" were not part of the list of vegetation created on day 3 in Genesis 1 ("plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit"). The explanation can be found in Genesis 3:18. As part of the curse for eating forbidden fruit, the Lord says to Adam: "cursed is the ground because of you [...] thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you; and you shall eat the plants of the field." The bush/plants of the field were not created until after man was made. We can conclude that these plants did not produce food in the form of grain or fruit like the vegetation created on day 3. Because of man's sin these plants became thorns and thistles. There is no need to assume a contradiction between Genesis 1 and 2.

I'd be careful connecting anything from Genesis 1 to elements from Genesis 2-4. They're different and unrelated stories written at very different times. Reading too much into these sort of connections could easily lead you to completely different conclusions than what the authors intended.

Although it's certainly true that Genesis 3 suggests thorns, thistles and other nastier parts of nature weren't around at first, which again fits the "man came first" aspect of the Genesis 2 creation story.

Your point that the two creation accounts are different stories written at different times is well taken, and many people underappreciate that fact.

However, it is also important to recognize that they were brought together and redacted by an editor (or committee of editors, perhaps even spread out over time) that arranged and tweaked the stories. At the very least, it is easy to glean from the text that they are intended to form a whole "collection," with connections between the various myths. The textual evidence suggests that the connections are stronger than that.

So while it is the more common error to underappreciate the differences between the accounts, it is a less common but equally erroneous mistake to underappreciate the "unity" (of a sort) that they have.

What if we assume skilled authorship which made connections purposefully in order to emphasize important points? Genesis is full of such connections.

If we assume harmony between Genesis 1:11-13 (fruits/grains) and Genesis 2:5 (bush/plants of the field) then it is clear that fruit was the chief food in the garden and agriculture came later.

Why can't both be correct? Genesis 2 puts them first because they are the most important creation, Genesis 1 puts them in chronological order.

If one of them was not correct nobody would have put them in the same bible.

> If one of them was not correct nobody would have put them in the same bible.

Focusing on "correct" is the wrong approach to reading these old mythological parts of the Bible. People put these stories in the Bible because of their story and meaning, not because of any kind of historical correctness. (Because how could they know?)

Neither of them are correct. Genesis is a synthesis of the mythology of the region. The meaning is vastly more important than the message.