An interesting conundrum in the interpretation of Genesis:
This story has God making man after He creates all other forms of life.
And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the cattle according to their kinds, and everything that creeps upon the ground according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth."
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.
Now read this story. It has God making man before He creates all other forms of life.
...when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up -- for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no man to till the ground; but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground--then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.
Now how can the two contradictory narratives be reconciled by one who holds to a literal interpretation of the text?