Again, you are not reading scripture as intended.
These are complementary perspectives, not competing accounts.
The text says:
“No shrub of the field had yet appeared… for the LORD God had not sent rain… and there was no man to work the ground.”
Genesis 1 → wild vegetation created
Genesis 2 → agriculture not yet begun
No contradiction, just different categories.
As far as the animals, This is a pluperfect (past perfect) sense. The animals were already created. God is now bringing them to Adam to be named.
So Genesis 2:19 does not say animals were created after man—only that they were presented after man.
“Man and woman created together” vs. “woman created later”
Genesis 1:27: Humanity is described collectively—“male and female he created them.”
Genesis 2:21–22: The narrative explains how woman was created.
Again, not a contradiction.
Sigh...
The land produced vegetation
Vs
and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth
Either it produced or it didn't produce which is it? It does not explicitly state all plants were created except for agricultural variety. You are choosing to add that part in and interpret it to favour of your argument. I am reading it how it is. Hence why there are soo many versions of the bible because everyone seems to think their interpretation is the right one.
19
Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air.
Notice how you ignored the first part which states that he formed the animals now, not before not later but now. THEN the next sentence he brought them to man
"So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field.
But for Adam [10] no suitable helper was found." <-- Which means no woman yet
Adam was made clearly first then the animals and because he didnt have a helper a woman was made out of his rib (lol ok let's just pretend this isnt a typical mythological fairytale thing to do).
This woman out of a rib part would be fine if it was placed straight after Adam and before the animals but it isn't. Hence the chronological inconsistency and directly contradicts Genesis 1.