“You seem to think gen 2 is an explanation of Gen I, where does it say that?”
That doesn’t need to be stated explicitly, since it is the only reading of the text that doesn’t introduce contradictions. Since we must start with the principle that God doesn’t contradict himself, we must discount any reading that would appear to create such contradictions. Your interpretation, that Gen. 2 is a chronological continuation of Gen. 1, creates such contradictions, so it cannot be correct. Which only leaves us with the alternative, that it is detailing some of the same events already recounted in Gen. 1 in greater detail.
“If your view of it is literal why does it change it from six days to generations and then to one day?”
I’ve already explained that the word “generations” in Genesis doesn’t refer to periods of time, so there is no switch. You are creating that apparent “switch” by your confusing English meanings of words with the actual meanings of the Hebrew words they were translated from.
I’ve already explained that the word “generations” in Genesis doesn’t refer to periods of time,
That is why the N.I.V changed it to account, the preachers could not explain why it said generations in ch 2 because it gives a reason not to believe in a literal six day creation.
We can see from the N.T that generations covered many years, not days.