Tower of Babel

I think it's been a good run for discussions regarding the Garden of Eden and Noah's flood being allegory, but I think it's time to advance beyond the tiring discussions of "yown can mean an era" and " the flood was local" which we are spinning wheels on presently and get into the literal veracity of Nimrod's story.I think it is best if creationists ar made to visit the subject alongside the Ark mythos and magic tree business.So, i suppose my question is, when are we going to operate on the premise that the discussion is over regarding the first two narratives and stop giving creos the floor to discuss that which is settled and move on to addressing literal claims on how language was diversified according to the bible?

Some languages diversify due to technical jargon used by specialists.I think that the tower is a metaphor for diversity within the culture arising through class rankings.As with any building project, we have the labourer who has a specific skillset and unique terminology for tools and techniques. Such as "gypsum" or "gypsumboard" is jargon for what the layman might call "drywall".Then you have "greenboard" which is drywall used for damp applications, whereas, again, the layman might request "mold-resistent drywall."The point being that many languages or sublanguages, "slang' exist within a building project. The foremen, of course, must be familiar with all these languages and have another language all their own.What we see is a division of work and hence, a division of classes and cultural identity.

Sure. The French language supplanting Latin in the 16th century, French being used for law and administration in the public record, then adopted/adapted for use in literature.

You mean like they did in South Park?

I'm not sure of your point? Does it have anything to do with the Tower of Babel?

This is a learning process for me to figure out the intended implication of this story and to maybe pass it on to others once I reach a conclusion that I am satisfied with. The basic premise is not an assertion, it is an assumption.Do I need to reword my initial claim so you understand the point?Or do I really have to explain that people can, in fact, be mulilingual, speaking a variant of their mother language in their profession that is unintelligible to those not initiated in the profession?Or maybe we can actually discuss the Tower of Babel and chew through whether my assumption pans out or listen to an alternative explanation that goes beyond the literal interpretion?Would that be okay?