You may be correct and that would create a logical inconsistency with the Bible.
However, there is also the fact that the God of the Bible is in fact an amalgamation of earlier Mesopotamian gods, who, while not necessarily being described as humans, have many human fallacies. In this case, these earlier gods make more sense logically. For instance, in the original Sumerian telling of the flood, Enlil (God of the OT), is frustrated that humans, who were created to be his slaves, start to become unruly so he decides to wipe everything off the face of the planet with a flood. Enlil's brother Enki, feeling compassionate for mankind, takes pity, and instructs his follower, Ziusudra (biblical Noah) to build an ark and thus saves humanity.
Similarly, the Garden of Eden (Sumerian E.DIN) story makes more sense when you look at the original telling. Enlil created man as a slave, which he intended to keep as a secret from man (man = A.DAMU in Sumerian). Enki, who was Enlil's brother, was kind of like man's caretaker, sent down from the heaven's to watch over them. So Enlil was like the CEO sitting up in his boardroom, while Enki was the supervisor, working in the trenches alongside mankind.
Again, Enki felt sorry for man, and attempted to give A.DAMU *knowledge* of his true purpose - that being a slave species. This is represented with the "tree of knowledge" and the serpent (serpent actually represents knowledge in Mesopotamian culture). This is why Enlil punished mankind "for eternity" - because he didn't want them to know they were created for mundane purposes, and this one piece of knowledge was deemed as forever off limits. Enlil then goes crazy and wipes everyone out with floods, scatters people with different languages, commits genocide, demands blind unquestioning obedience, etc etc etc.
