That’s an interesting post and discussion (although I didn’t read the last third of the comments, it seemed like the convo was starting to repeat itself).

Actually, when you read only the KJV version the reasoning in the post is right on; I wouldn’t think there is any contradiction either. I think the ESV presents chapter 2 quite differently.
KJV:

4These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, 5And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. 6But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. 7And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

ESV:

4These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens.5When no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up—for the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the land, and there was no man to work the ground, 6and a mist was going up from the land and was watering the whole face of the ground— 7then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.

The ESV sounds more like the whole section about the reason plants hadn’t sprouted yet is an interjection and therefore the timing of the mist is quite unclear. Use of em-dashes in that way would mean that the sentence has pretty much the same meaning if you exclude the contents of the dashes altogether (I know the original didn’t have punctuation like that).

So, I’m led to a bunch of questions such as:

Are the versions culturally coloured?

Was it taken for granted at the writing of the KJV that Genesis was 100% literal, or did they have a different way of writing that didn’t include interjectory statements and so Genesis 2 was translated the way it was?
Or is the ESV translated in light of our current age and beliefs (e.g., what science has to say)?
Or is there a difference between the textus receptus and the compiled Hebrew sources that the ESV is translated from that could cause a difference?

How much are we coloured by our previous teaching and culture?

I know you want to find out what the bible says and not be influenced by human stuff, but I wonder if it’s even possible… I get the impression that 7 day creationism is more widely accepted in the US (a gross generalisation I know, but it is just an impression, and I don’t have much else to go on). Where as I’ve only met two people here that have said they believe in a literal ‘day’ creation. There are probably more people around me that do believe that, but I’ve never heard them talk about it.
Also, I studied science and live in a culture where that kind of knowledge is highly regarded, so I can’t call scientists fools for seeking explanations to the evidence they find.
Of course, I want to seek God’s truth through his Word and the Holy Spirit without presupposition. That is what I tried to do when reading Genesis recently and I came out thinking that Gen 1 is not literal. However, maybe we can’t separate external teaching from our reading of the bible and it’s one of things we have to agree to disagree (when it doesn’t affect how we are justified before God). I don’t know.

Well, that was a long ramble that I wasn’t expecting to have. ;)

First, you should note that this verse refutes the idea that the “days” of Genesis are symbolic of long periods of time…

While this is a very interesting point about the order of creation and the possible whens and hows of it, I’m not convinced. I currently think the days are periods of time and that the account of creation is poetic, not literal. I don’t feel strongly about it and am always ready to hear discussion about it… Thankfully my view still holds the excellent things you said about God being the life-giver to be true.

If it were the case that the days are literal and that the earth sprouted and brought forth vegetation on the third day. What does it mean in Genesis 2 when it says

These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created… When no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up… then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life

In Genesis 1 the earth has sprouted vegetation long before man is made, but in Genesis 2 it hasn’t sprouted yet because it hasn’t rained yet and then God makes man.

Regardless of science, the whole account does not track for me as a literal account.