Ivon the way you're reading this, you may as well take Genesis 2:7 and say it's the creation of a second human race, since man was already created in chapter 1, but then in that verse it says God created man.
Wouldn't that be an obviously wrong interpretation? But in the abstract you're doing the same thing here; taking the mention of a thing written in past tense to mean it is the first appearing of that thing, not a reference to an event that is already past in the timeline of the narrative, all of which is past-tense.
Wouldn't that be an obviously wrong interpretation? But in the abstract you're doing the same thing here; taking the mention of a thing written in past tense to mean it is the first appearing of that thing, not a reference to an event that is already past in the timeline of the narrative, all of which is past-tense.