Of course, even if you assume that it is Gods communication - in some sense - which is the most that you could actually get from the Bible that hardly means that it was intended to tell us what happened in the distant past.
Why not? If it says something about the distant past then it's telling us the truth about that distant past. It tells us about Creation, it tells us about the Flood. If it's God's word and He cannot lie then it's telling us the truth about those events.
And it is far from clear that your views are correct even from looking at the text.
Why should your views of my views be taken seriously at all?
For instance, if God wished to give us an accurate account of the Flood it seems rather odd that He would do it by mashing two versions of the story together.
I see, and you've had a conversation with Him about this and know He wouldn't do it that way? But nobody but unbelievers read the Flood accounts that way, unbelievers including the "scholars" who come up with such stuff, and some presumptuous people who call themselves "believers" but are in for a very rude shock. There's no "mashing" involved, believers know that everything in the Bible is to be read as dovetailing with everything else in the Bible.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.