BilliardsBall, you are not looking at this logically.
Let's say the what the Genesis say is true (hypothetically speaking), that the Flood happened, and Noah and his descendants were real people. And supposed it did happen, the Flood, in 2340 BCE.
Now, except for the Shem's descendants all the way to Abraham in Genesis 11, Genesis 10 provided no dates, ages or years, and especially not in Ham's descendants.
In earlier chapters regarding to the Flood, there were no other survivors except for Noah, his (unnamed) wife, his 3 sons and their unnamed wives, so in total 8 adult individuals.
Clearly they didn't have children, the whole time they were building the Ark and then living in the Ark for 1 year, before they disembarked.
So we don't know how old Ham was, when his wife gave birth to Mizraim/Egypt and to Cush.
Since you want to focus on Nimrod, then let's look at him.
Cush could be name given for two possible locations, Nubia and Ethiopia in Africa, or to unspecific region in the Middle East. And there are no age given to Cush, when Nimrod was born. And in Genesis 10, Nimrod was said to found cities first in Babylonia and then in Assyria.
But the problem with this, Genesis 10's description, wouldn't Cush have to be born first, then grow up to adulthood, before becoming father to Nimrod, so what was Cush's age? 20? 30? 50? Genesis doesn't say, so we don't know.
And how old was Ham when Cush was born? 98-99 years old (2 years after the Flood), like his brother Shem with Arpachshad? 110? 120? Or even older? Genesis 10 doesn't say, so we don't know Ham's age when Cush or any of others were born.
And before started his building his empire in Babylonia and Assyria, wouldn't Nimrod have to grow up? So how old was he? 20? 40? 100? Again, Genesis 10 doesn't say, so we don't know.
It could be Cush was 20, when Nimrod was born, and Nimrod when he built his first city, but that would be speculating the minimum ages of these two men. But it could be lot more. Regardless of their age, they would have to wait for decades before Nimrod was old enough to start his city-building programs.
But if the gap between the end of the Flood and Nimrod is a mere 40 years, would there be enough population to help him build 3 cities in Babylonia and 4 cities in Assyria?
I think Genesis 10 is unrealistic, if you seriously think Nimrod can built all these cities, with just 4 couples who survived the Flood, are able repopulate the world and build new cities all in a very short period of time.
All of the above, about Genesis 10, are hypotheical, of course, because I am make my point, about the impossibility of Genesis 10.
According to both Sumerian and Akkadian literature, Sargon was said to be founder of Akkad, but most likely the city already existed, and that he was born in the city.
Whatever was the case, Sargon didn't built Erech/Uruk because it had already existed over 2000 years before his time (5000 BCE). Which would mean Sargon isn't the biblical Nimrod. Uruk was the greatest city in Mesopotamia during the 4th millennium BCE, and was still important in the first half of 3rd millennium BCE (3000 - 2000 BCE). As I stated in my earlier reply, Uruk began declined in importance, because of Sargon conquered all of Sumer.
Sargon also didn't build Assur, one of the cities that Nimrod had allegedly constructed. Archaeological evidences showed that Assur has been around, since at least 2600 BCE. Hence, Assur would have also predated Genesis mythological Flood (2340 BCE).
Genesis 10 is certainly not historical accounts, and a lot of is also weak in archaeological department.
Anyway, Nimrod isn't Sargon. Sargon may or may not be founder of Akkad, but he certainly wasn't founder of Uruk, nor that of Assur.
Of course, you are going to ignore the archaeological evidences about Uruk and Assur, because that's what you always do. All you do is make excuses, when you ignored the evidences, and then make false equivalent like with you linking Sargon and Nimrod.
What you need to understand, that we have both historical and legendary records, but even more important, we actually have archaeological evidences of the ages of many ruins, including that of Uruk, Ur (a city that Abram/Abraham was born in, which also predated the imagainary Flood of Genesis), Eridu, etc, which not only predated Sargon, but also predated the 3rd millennium BCE. And we have some archaeological of the Akkadian empire that Sargon started.
My point is that based on both historical records and archaeological evidences, there were no Flood that disrupted the Sumerian-Akkadian civilisation in the 3rd millennium BCE, and caused decades of gap.
This is the only part you got right, the Old Testament was written in Hebrew.
BUT, Hebrew as a written language, didn’t exist until at least the 10th century BCE, perhaps even as early the 11th century, but that’s more likely Proto-Canaanite alphabets, not Palaeo-Hebrew (ancient Hebrew).
The 10th century BCE inscriptions found on the Zayit Stone and the writings on the Gezer Calendar are the earliest evidences of palaeo-Hebrew alphabets. But neither of these discoveries contain any passage from the Old Testament.
The oldest evidence found containing passage from Numbers 6, is the badly damaged Silver Scrolls, where part of the Priestly Blessings survived. It has been dated between Josiah’s reign and the fall of Jerusalem (so either late 7th century or early 6th century BCE, found in the Ketef Hinnom cave that served as a tomb.
There are no 3rd or 2nd millennia BCE Bronze Age Hebrew Scriptures written in cuneiform or hieroglyphs. The Torah didn’t exist in the 2nd millennium BCE.
