Nope. Two completely different poetic versions of the origin of earth.
They are not poetic. Psalms is what's poetic.
Ok, let's see if they are really two completely contradictory versions.
Man is created in Genesis 2 before any other lifeform.
Then comes vegetation, and well defined streams of water. .
You're confusing "creation" and "agriculture" with each other. There were no fields before man. It doesn't say there were no plants or trees before man; it says there were no plants
of the field before man.
Also, please show me where it says in Genesis 2 that the streams of water were formed after man.
After that, animals were created, to give man a helper.
Where does it say that animals were created
after man.
The Old Testament verses aren't always aligned in chronological order. Depending on the context, an event may be first mentioned when it becomes relevant to the main subject of the overall account. That is what you see in Genesis 2:19 and in other verses/passages throughout the Bible. And that is why some translations properly apply a past participle to the verb "form" in Genesis 2:19.
Man names all the animals, but non fits him as a helper.
I don't remember it saying that man names
all the animals.
In Genesis 1, people are created at the sixth day, after the rest of the world has been created. They are created men and women, after the image of G_d.
How does this contradict Genesis 2?
Very different timeline, very different story.
Only in your imagination. The Bible is bigger than you think.
Is one of these two versions false?
If one of them is false, how will I know which one to take as the absolute truth, and how can it be that there are lies in the book you say is factually true word by word?
Or are both something completely different than a factual report of how earth and it's inhabitants came to be?
False dichotomy. Both accounts are historically true as I've shown above.