"There are just too many elements missing for any serious reader of the Bible to conclude that a different Creation story starts at Genesis 2:4. In fact, it doesn't even mention the creation of the Earth, nor does it mention the oceans, fish, whales, Sun, Moon, and stars."
I'm not really discussing the two stories. I have always found it interesting that there are varying texts out there, and that the Genesis story is so similar in many aspects to pre-mosaic creation stories.
My interest is only in literality. I cannot understand the insistence on literality by some for this ancient tale. It's easy to see that other interpretations can be made, and supported from Biblical sources. The literality of the 24-hour day thing is a real stumbling block, in my opinion.
The very definition of the Judeo-Christian deity as omnipotent and omnipresent makes insistence on a literal interpretation of a tale first told around campfires, then later recorded in written form, a bit silly, in my estimation.
As a writer, I always consider my audience before I put words on paper. I write differently for an audience of children than I do for an audience of academics.
The Pentateuch is so clearly a transcription of an oral telling of history, complete with mnemonic clues, that it's hard to see it otherwise for me. The creation story, condensed into a very small text, is so clearly allegorical to me, that I'm amazed that it is ever taken otherwise.
The technicalities of versions is not an area that interests me all that much. I don't have a knowledge of Hebrew. I am, however, very interested in transcriptions of oral information, and connections to other creation stories in that region of the world. It's fascinating.
Of course, I don't believe in deities at all, so it's purely an academic interest. The Bible is one of the most influential documents of mankind, so I'm naturally interested in it.