Faith writes:
If it's God's word and He cannot lie then it's telling us the truth about those events.
Except of course for the fact that Genesis tells of God lying.
Since God lied in Genesis 2 is there any reason to think the fact that either of the two mutually exclusive flood myths is factual?
Faith writes:
If it says something about the distant past then it's telling us the truth about that distant past.
Except for the fact that the distant past itself tells us that the story is wrong. Should we believe stories or the actual evidence? Did God intentionally tamper with the evidence just to fool everyone?
Faith writes:
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.
Yet again the evidence shows that those you claim are not believers actually are believers and that includes much of Christianity today as well as in the past.
Faith writes:
There's no "mashing" involved, believers know that everything in the Bible is to be read as dovetailing with everything else in the Bible.
No doubt people do believe as you say yet the fact remains that the two mutually exclusive flood myths are just mashed together just as the God described in Genesis 1 is entirely different than the God described in Genesis 2&3 and the two creation myths are also totally contradictory.