Genesis never claims that the land outside of the garden (of the Eden region) was paradise. So I don’t understand why you are implying that there is something incoherent in the text. (Or am I misinterpreting your post? I may have.)
However one interprets the garden pericope, it is hardly surprising or “illogical” that life in an already planted and productive garden would be easier (and much more desirable) than trying to survive in the wilderness OUTSIDE of a planted garden reserve. So I’m not sure what you are saying is NOT “sensible and coherent” in the account.
Yes, most American Young Earth Creationists think the entire planet earth was like the “garden in Eden” —but that is tradition, not text. They also think that there was a “second creation” after the fall when weeds and thorns were created but the Biblical text never says that. Instead, just as logic and common sense would suggest, someone who gets kicked out of a well-planted and maintained garden is going to find the surrounding wilderness a harsh place filled with weeds and thorns! That’s what grows when there is no gardener making sure that only desirable plants are growing in the soil.
Of course, it is not so surprising that the general public would assume that if traditional fundamentalist Christians claim the Genesis describes the entire planet in various ways, then surely that is true. Obviously, the Biblical text and what people claim about the Biblical text are not always the same thing. Indeed, Genesis 1-3 has a lot to say about the ERETZ (“land” or “earth, in the sense of soil, the ground, or opposite of sky”) but interpreting ERETZ as “planet earth” as many do is anachronism which not only misunderstands the Hebrew text, it even misunderstands the fact that “earth” in 1611 King James English did NOT demand the modern sense of “planet earth”. Readers of English at that time considered the “primary meaning” of the word EARTH to refer to the opposite of sky, the ground they tilled to grow crops. They didn’t yet have the primary focus on “planet earth” like the English speakers of the 20th century.
The misunderstanding of the Hebrew word ERETZ as “planet earth” instead of “land” is probably the most significant interpretation error of the entire Bible (in modern day society.) Yet, even today (just as in ancient Israel) ERETZ YISRAEL means “Land of Israel” or “Nation of Israel” but NEVER “Planet Israel.” Likewise, imposing “planet earth” on the early chapters of Genesis is anachronistic thinking. Ancient Hebrews had no concept of “Planet Earth”. (Of course, that is why the pericope in Genesis 2 is not a “second creation story of planet earth”. It is a story about a particular ERETZ where God planted a garden. It was a particular ERETZ/“land”/“region” where there was no rain but only water in the form of underground water or mists which could be used by Adam to make up for the lack of rain. That is, on its own the land would produce no crops but with a man placed there on the ERETZ/land to irrigate and maintain the garden God planted, it would be very productive. This is not a story about the entire “planet earth” but a story about the ERETZ/land which people today call “the Garden of Eden” even though it was really just a particular plot of land in there Eden Region where God had planted a garden and placed HA’ADAM (“the human one”) to irrigate and tend it. That is why Genesis 2 is in no way a “contradiction” of Genesis 1. They are two different stories with two different purposes—regardless of whether a particular modern day reader thinks they actually happened in history or not. (Let’s give the ancients credit for having common sense. Does anybody really think that they didn’t notice that Genesis 1 and Genesis told different stories?)
Clearly, from vocabulary and structural evidence, it is obvious that Genesis 1 (and the first verses of Gen 2) as well as rest of Genesis 2 were independent traditions (probably passed down orally until they were written down in what became known to us as the Book of Genesis, the first book of the Torah).
