I don't see where's the problem with the 2nd chapter of Genesis. Books, and scientific papers especially, are nowadays written in the same way -- you get an abstract, an introduction which summarizes the overall problem, methods, etc. and then you get chapters that deal with details. Also, the account of Adam and Eve does not start "halfway through" the verse 4, but with verse 4, verses 1-3 being just a short bridge from chapter 1.

I also must stress that Judaism at its core is monistic. Not even monotheistic. It's a direct descendant of a school of non-dualists who were present in Levant since arrival of Indo-Europeans. It's the same precursor that gave birth to Zoroastrianism and Vedic Hinduism respectively. It's the sparsely mentioned tradition of "wine and bread" to which Abraham (and also Melchizedek) apparently belonged. That it became infused and merged with Levantine polytheism, their animal sacrifices, gods, etc. is a different matter and is something that also happened to Jesus' revival and reformation attempts.

Another detail I think it's also worth mentioning is that Brahma, as creator god, is part of Trimurti, that is, a trinity of gods, i.e. personified cosmic aspects of manifestation (and Brahman!), responsible for creation (Brahma), preservation (Vishnu), and destruction (Shiva) respectively. They are like yin-yang symbol which actually represents Tao.

As for your upcoming themes -- all sources I know of talk about gan-be'eden, Eden being the name of a place, garden ("gan") being the descriptor. I would like to see the source where this is not the case. Also, it's necessary to keep in mind that in time when these stories were invented, Levant (fertile crescent) was a literal garden (it turned into desert few millennia later) and the geography in Genesis pretty much corresponds with it. Of course, there is a deep allegorical meaning in the Garden story, but I really don't get what you are actually trying to prove. That the literalists who consider Adam and Eve to be factual first two persons popping into existence directly from clay through some nebulous divine intervention are wrong? Sure, but I don't think that that's still a significant thing in Christian theology (and definitely not in Judaism).