I have not thought you to be obtuse, and yet I've seen you several times replying to clear questions with similar phrases to the above, followed by responses quite different than what was directly asked, as below.

essay wrote:1. The EB states: 'The Bible begins with the creation of the universe. It tells the story with images borrowed (polite word for plagiarized - SA) from Babylonian mythology, transformed to express its own distinctive view of God and Man.' (Macropedia vol. 2, p. 899)

But this isn't what I asked, and isn't what you have said and said and said. In post #803 I already gave you this "The EB does not give a list of Sumerian-Babylonian sources for Genesis 1-2." I still don't see the list of supposed Sumerian-Babylonian sources that Genesis 1-2 was, according to you, plagiarized and cribbed from. I couldn't find that list in the EB, just a repeated assertion of influence. It's fine that you buy that assertion, I do not, but unlike the EB you haven't referred to influence or borrowing, you've referred to stealing and copying, plagiarizing and cribbing. "Borrowed" is not a "polite word for plagiarized" in my vocabulary, but the point isn't the semantic terms, you have clearly indicated that you believe the first two chapters of Genesis are copied from pagan sources. What are the sources? Let's look at the pagan sources they are copied from. The Enuma Elish was supposed to be a source that influenced the creation account, according to scholars you follow. If so, that is a very strange sort of plagiarizing or cribbing, as you put it. What other sources give us the words that are in those two chapters? Extant Sumerian-Babylonian sources that we can read in the public library or on-line? What is not clear about asking for the specific sources you believe the creation accounts were copied from? The specific original sources that were copied, plagiarized, cribbed, to produce the Biblical account. What are they? Where do we find them to look at them?

esay wrote:2. The Encyclopedia Judaica, 1971 edition states: 'The external points of contact between the Genesis creation account and the ancient Near Eastern cosmologies are suuficiently numerous and detailed so as to leave no doubt about the influence of the latter on the former.' That's NO doubt, caf, N-O. Like the EB, the EJ then goes on to add that, in spite of the unmistakable similarities, there are also important differences, of which the greatest is the montheistic Hebrew God in place of the pagan polytheism. As we have discussed before, this does not prevent Gen 1 from using a plural noun for 'God', nor is the conversation God has with Himself following Adam's sin suppressed. Attributing these semi-polytheistic indications to the Trinity doesn't really wash, since the Trinity is a Christian concept with no source in Judaism, and is in arguably the single biggest difference between the two religions.

There are differences? Like between life and death? Or between dark and light? Or between truth and myth? Yes, there are differences. But if Genesis has not one original word (as you said) and the creation account is plagiarized, there shouldn't be real differences. On the other hand, a careful analysis of the Greco-Roman myths or the Norse myths or various Inuit creation stories and others will reveal fully as many similarities to the Biblical account as any examination of the Sumerian-Babylonian myths (read them for yourself and see), but those points of similarity are deemed irrelevant to the discussion because of time and place - "external points of contact." We've already dealt with the fact that similarities or parallels occur in various pagan myths and Biblical stories. There is no shred of evidence indicating adaptation of pagan myths, Sumerian or otherwise, into Biblical accounts. The assumption that "external points of contact" leave "no doubt" is absurd. It is the exact kind of reasoning that put everyone of Japanese descent into camps in World War II America. Guilt by association, no doubt.

Nothing is "suppressed" in the Biblical account. The notion should be funny, but instead it is pitiful. You obviously have issues with doctrines you were raised to believe, and that's unfortunate, but your problem, I suppose. Nevertheless, the Bible presents a consistent account of the character, power, and works of God. Perhaps you need to read up on the concept of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (not the later defined church tradition and doctrine of the trinity, but the Biblical godhead, both Testaments). Christian or Jew or Moslem or Pagan or whatever, yes, who Jesus is, is indeed the crux of the matter.

essay wrote:3. The late Isaac Asimov wrote two books on Genesis, 'In the Beginning' and 'Words from Genesis'. I have not read either of these, but I suspect that he addressed this topic in depth in one or both of them. He gives it a 'once-over' in his excellent but relatively compact 'Asimov's Guide to the Bible: Vol. 1, The Old Testament'.

Oops, I'll go with Ben on Asimov's efforts on the Bible. He was a great mystic, with his SETI project, and knew something of science, and wrote some fairly good fiction (particularly the original Foundation trilogy and the early Robot stories) but he was no Bible scholar, though made a few dollars on his printed ramblings about it. He was a dandy example of the committed scientific religionist.

essay wrote:4. I do not have the Anchor Bible available to me here in Germany. I have no doubt, however, that it addresses the sources of Genesis in some detail.

I have grave doubt, because no one "addresses the sources of Genesis in some detail." Including the Anchor Bible Dictionary, the latest and greatest in the series. It has been accepted as a mantra of faith, non-Biblical faith, but faith none the less, that the Genesis creation account was influenced (not copied, not plagiarized, not cribbed) by Sumerian-Babylonian myths. The only one I can find mentioned by name that is extant (but not complete) is the Enuma Elish. Clearly Genesis was not copied from that. Again, what scholarly source do you have for the statement that Genesis was "plagiarized" from Sumerian-Babylonian myths? When you've made the statement various times in various ways I've said you have no source for that assertion. It seems in fact you have no source for that assertion, just an attitude. So the rest of the question still remains, what pagan sources do you, essay, accept as the sources for Genesis 1-2, from which you believe it was copied? Specific Sumerian-Babylonian documents that we can access, that you have seen, that are available in the public library right there where you are? What are they?

essay wrote: Now, howzabout you citing some experts - not apologists, but experts acknowledged as such across sectarian lines - who claim that Genesis is entirely original and had no pagan sources at all. No hurry, caf, I know that, like myself, you may be busy.

The premise as stated will not stand or be supported. This is a straw man for you to argue against. You have not previously argued that Genesis is not "entirely original", but that not one word of Genesis is original. Are those the only two choices? As to "no pagan sources at all", hypothetically, suppose that Terah might have been a source, "This is the account of Terah," (Genesis 11:26) whether by oral history or written record, of his genealogy and family. Joshua 24:15 refers to "the gods your forefathers served beyond the River." That is a reference to Abraham's family in Chaldea - Babylon. Perhaps Abraham's father Terah, or his father or grandfather was a pagan. No, I won't argue for "entirely original" or "no pagan sources at all." Genesis has 11 sections demarked with the phrase "these are the generations of" or "this is the account of". I've no doubt there were sources for Genesis. Not Sumerian-Babylonian myths, not contradictory accounts interwoven by skillful scholarly editors, but true accounts from real people passed down until the time was right for God to bring it all together. I also have no doubt Moses was the man who initially brought it together, with the rest of the Law, as the Bible consistently reflects, and that later prophets, such as Iddo and Jeremiah, updated the language and added explanatory notes for later generations.

I will offer these expert opinions about the Sumerian-Babylonian source idea though.

Joshua and Israel knew the Sumerian-Babylonian myths, and rejected them.
Josh 24:14-16
14 "Now fear the LORD and serve him with all faithfulness. Throw away the gods your forefathers worshiped beyond the River and in Egypt, and serve the LORD. 15 But if serving the LORD seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your forefathers served beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are living. But as for me and my household, we will serve the LORD."
16 Then the people answered, "Far be it from us to forsake the LORD to serve other gods!
(from New International Version)

Isaiah knew the Babylonian myths and rejected them (according to the documentary-hypothesis, which essay accepts beyond credulity, P should have been composing Genesis 1 ["plagiarizing"?] from Babylonian myths about the same time Isaiah began his prophesying against Bablyonian myths in the mid-eighth century B.C. Such things don't make sense in the real world of real people.)Isa 21:9 Look, here comes a man in a chariot
with a team of horses.
And he gives back the answer:
'Babylon has fallen, has fallen!
All the images of its gods
lie shattered on the ground!'"
(from New International Version)

Jeremiah in the seventh - sixth century B.C. knew the Bablyonian myths and rejected them.
Jer 50:2
2 "Announce and proclaim among the nations,
lift up a banner and proclaim it;
keep nothing back, but say,
'Babylon will be captured;
Bel will be put to shame,
Marduk filled with terror.
Her images will be put to shame
and her idols filled with terror.'
(from New International Version)

And there is something especially ironic about John's first century denunciation of Babylon and her religion, when essay and others effectively accuse the Bible writers of verbal adultery with her, producing an adulterated message from her.
Rev 18:2-3
With a mighty voice he shouted:
"Fallen! Fallen is Babylon the Great!
She has become a home for demons
and a haunt for every evil spirit,
a haunt for every unclean and detestable bird.
3 For all the nations have drunk
the maddening wine of her adulteries.
The kings of the earth committed adultery with her,
and the merchants of the earth grew rich from her excessive luxuries."
(from New International Version)

There's nothing for it. Either the ancient experts, and all who have followed them, were fools, or someone more recent is. Again, I'll take the ancient folly.

1 Cor 1:20-24
20 Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22 Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24 but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.
(from New International Version)

Essay, name your oft-averred Sumerian-Babylonian sources, or admit you just believe it even though you don't know any and can't make a list, or hang it up.