28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

:29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground--everything that has the breath of life in it--I give every green plant for food." And it was so.

It would appear that there is a curious omission in the second chapter of Genesis -- mention of the seas of the earth and the living creatures that inhabit it. Could the author of the first of the two creation myths contained within Genesis have written about the seas because he or she was familiar with that environment, while the author of the second appears to have not been as knowledgeable or familiar -- is it then, more Babylonian, more inland, than the first? What would be the most plausible socio-geographical origin of that myth if it is not Babylonian? Or is it just coincidence that the seas and its fishes and other creatures were of little interest to the author? Other than during the episode of the Flood in the time of Noah, there is no specific attention paid to this environment of the Earth, nor of its creatures in the creation myths of the Bible other than during the very first chapter of Genesis. We could include the creatures of the sea in the "wild beasts", but the direct omission strikes the imagination to a greater extent.

A footnote in the Jerusalem Bible on the name of "Babel" reads: “Babel is derived here from a verb meaning 'to confuse,' but in fact the name means 'gate of the god.’”