Maybe it's good news to announce that it can be shown that the garden is a geometric-mystical construction in abstract space-time.

I have no doubt at the moment that the Genesis account is as scientific as it is allegorical.

How we of this generation can begin to understand and enter into the garden is another matter all together.

But, for sure, the trees are at the center of the garden, and the 4 rivers nourish it.

The big question for me, is, why has it been so difficult for humanity to deal with this matter?

Maybe Daniel or Hesiod have hinted the answer. Maybe if @tycho can figure the garden out, then we are in revolutionary times indeed.

Some verses in the Bible were written by imaginative guys. Wonder whether they had access to the holly herb them days.

There exists a science of dreams. It's related closely to the structure and functions of the mind and the universe. Maybe the universe is pure mind even!

Every memory is stored in what some have called 'Akashic space' under a homogeneous structure that may be akin to our contemporary 'Object-oriented model.'

That's what would appear to be the case.

But, what would take humanity to speak the same language? As long as there is no union with God, then it's not possible.

The explanation given appears to be a key and hint for the discerning reader about human design, and also of the minds of the historians involved in this narrative.

It may be important to note that these towers appear to be restricted in the late bronze and iron ages. Like the pyramids of Egypt.

So we have evidence of how human effort for one language without union with God has turned out.

What is an allegory? According to Miriam Webster’s dictionary, it is “the expression by means of symbolic fictional figures and actions, of truths or generalizations about human existence”.

Allegory therefore is symbolism, or figurative speech; and there doesn’t need to be a mystery beneath it. It is useful where things need not be explicitly stated, so that the proverbial “let those with ears hear”, is applicable.

Allegories are timeless.

Pattern seeking mammals tune out explicitly state truths. There can be no mystery to unravel. No conspiracy to create from varied interpretation.

When a position is stated allegorically, those in kinship with the authors will understand the deeper meaning; those not will either be left out or seek alternative truths.

It may be that in the past, allegories were a vehicle for separating entities (cultural, religious), inasmuch as communicating a moral position tacitly.

To your first question about doing nothing, No; except to creating supernatural alternatives to explain what sounds mysterious. If we do so, we should be open to evolving as facts come in.

To avoid sounding like a tautology and spinning into infinite regress, why don’t you tender an opinion about my assertions to which I can respond.

@Apricot, let me have some rest. I'll get back to you maybe tomorrow...

There are as many creationist theories as there are peoples of the world.

Even the book of Genesis has 2 different creation accounts.

There is no reason to believe creationist stories of middle eastern nomads, forced upon you by colonisers.

Perhaps an example would express my view better. Hard core philosophy is not my forte.

Let take the example of Francis Collins – the scientist/geneticist in the Human Genome project. Despite his immense contribution to the working of DNA, he, like Newton, was obsessed with seeking spirituality in the numinous, whereas their talents could have greatly benefited biology (Collins) or Calculus (Newton). Francis Collins while hiking in the Cascade Mountains in Mississippi came across a waterfall frozen into 3 streams and that put him in the mind of the Holy Trinity. Newton himself was obsessed with the measurement of temple of Solomon and in Alchemy (converting base metal to Gold), but thankfully, that is not what we remember him for. Both had a mind of scientific inquiry, but were still able to put that aside and compartmentalize a part of their brain to seek complex patterns of human existence. The puzzle remains despite those efforts.

On Collins, I used this resource:
https://samharris.org/th...ase-of-francis-collins/

Although I wasn’t able to fully understand your argument above, going by Ockham’s razor “principle of economy”, this relies for its effect on disposing of unnecessary assumptions and accepting the first sufficient explanation or cause. "Do not multiply entities beyond necessities it says". Ockham by following his logic was able to conclude that “it was possible to know the nature of “created” things without any reference to their “creator”. In my opinion, this strongly aligns with my assertions.