In the case of Jewish tradition stories that deal in historical characters, I would not dismiss it all out of hand. It was their people they are talking about. Not made up fantasies.
When it comes to dates it is a matter of belief. Your pretension that science knows best on dates is unsubstantiated fantasy.
Except that you provided date to events and to people who don’t except in stories in the Bible and in traditions that WEREN’T COMPOSED CONTEMPORARY to these events and people.
You posted a date (2234 BCE) to the construction of Babylon and Tower of Babel to that of the patriarch Peleg, to a 6th century CE Latin philosopher Simplicius who wrote a story about Chaldean astronomers informing Alexander the Great, (Simplicius writing) some 800 years after the battle of Gaugmela (331 BCE).
You don’t find your claims all that strange, that you willing to agree with are writing about a philosopher who wasn’t contemporary to Alexander and the Chaldean astronomers, and Macedonian general and astronomers who weren’t contemporaries to Babylon, and yet you are willing to reject everything physical that can be dated and tied to Babylon and the absence of Babel (except with your claim that it was buried beneath uplift and subduction, which cannot prove)?
Man, dad, you are hypocrite because you can reject physical evidence and yet rely on on dating from philosopher, who writing about Alexander meeting astronomers in 331 BCE. That’s double standard.
How do you know such a meeting took place between Alexander and astronomers?
You do realize that most of authors who wrote biographies of Alexander weren’t contemporaries to Alexander, and invented legends about some of his exploits that didn’t happen?
All you have is hearsay from a philosopher that you cannot in any way prove. No other biographers of Alexander the Great, wrote of such encounter and about Alexander finding out about Babylon founding.
Without written records to collaborate Simplicius’ claim, then we know that Simplicius is making it all up.
You do realize that it was the Amorites who started the first dynasty in Babylon, not the Chaldeans?
The Chaldeans were only around in Mesopotamia in early 1st millennium BCE, and created the 3rd dynasty starting with Nabopolassar in 625 BCE, who was father of Nebuchadnezzar II.
The area known as Chaldea, between Ur and the Persian Gulf, was inhabitable through much of the 2nd millennium BCE, because it was marshland during the 1st dynasty of Babylon who were Amorites and 2nd dynasty of Babylon who were Kassites.
During the 4th and 3rd millennia BCE, the shoreline of the Persian Gulf were further inland than in Nabopolassar’s and Nebuchadnezzar’s days, and the Sumerian cities Ur and Eridu were port cities.
Apart from their occupations of Babylon in different periods in history, the Amorites and Chaldeans weren’t unrelated to each other.
Which is nothing wrong about Genesis:
“Genesis 11:31” said:
31 Terah took his son Abram and his grandson Lot son of Haran, and his daughter-in-law Sarai, his son Abram’s wife, and they went out together from Ur of the Chaldeans to go into the land of Canaan; but when they came to Haran, they settled there.
Ur was formerly and originally Sumerian city found around 3800 BCE. The last Sumerian dynasties of Ur was the 3rd dynasty of Ur before Amorites occupation 200 years later.
The Chaldeans weren’t Sumerians too. So based on what we know about Babylon and Ur, the Chaldeans weren’t around 9th century BCE.
The first Amorite king to rule Babylon was Sumu-abum, who started the dynasty in 1897 BCE. But Sumu-abum was a minor king, and Babylon was still unimportant city. Babylon didn’t become important until Sumu-abum’s descendant, the 6th king, Hammurabi (c 1810 - 1750 BCE), who started the empire, and conqured all the lands between Euphrates and Tigris.
Babylon was a minor a city also in Sumerian and Akkadian. Babylon was first mentioned during the reign of Sargon of Akkad, reign 2234 to 2284 BCE, who started the Akkadian dynasty and the Akkadian empire.
Archaeology haven’t been able to find Agade, a city of Akkad (biblical Accad in Genesis 10), but according to tablet, Babylon was located near Agade.
There are connections of Babylon to Sargon, but there are no physical and literary records of Genesis Nimrod. Sargon is not found with a number of objects (including a figurines of his head and clay tablets that were dated to 24th century BCE with his name, he was also listed in the king lists.
Sargon, many evidence; Nimrod, zilch.
There are also many evidence of the Amorite Hammurabi, including tablets and even more importantly a stone column (now exhibited at the Louvre) with inscriptions of his codification of the earliest known laws in the Middle East, known as the Codes of Hammurabi.
