Summations Only

There is an earlier Babylonian account ( Enuma Elish)
It is quite similar to Genesis. Like the Noah myth is a copy of older myth. so too it seems with Genesis.The Babylonian Genesis ( Heidel) has direct comparison side by side from the older Babylonian creation epic and bible Genesis. There are striking similarities that can not be coincidence. There are shown 8 points of striking similarity to Gen1.
Another author ( Copan) has noted the same.I have no particular interest in re- researching this to give more detail. Percy has indicated the lack of value in doing that. Faith has no particular interest in truth or history but rather making both fit her fantasy and getting upset at those pointing to obvious problems.Jar has shown the significant difference between the two Genesis accounts.So there is virtually no where to hide with a bogus Genesis . It's a copy of earlier myth, the two accounts are different. Science disproves it.
It's hard to get a more obvious example of bunk.

They were not stupid. But they were scientifically illiterate and superstitious and trying to understand often with imagination because they didn't have much evidence to go on. I don't see any particular reason to believe they didn't think it was factual. The OT is full of things no knowledgeable person today believes. I think they likely believed it with no problem at all. It's only because of modern knowledge, do we see it as absurd. With the ancients demonstrated ability to believe a lot of superstition, multiple, varying gods, made up explanations for why things occurred....I think saying they didn't see it as factual is a stretch.

I believe you give them more credit than what is demonstrated. The content is significantly different in specific things. I believe it is noticeably different to some at that time. But I don't know what their motivations were and how much religious delusion factored in.
The delusion factor is huge. We see people with modern knowledge subjected to cult thinking, can say, apparently seriously..that the accounts are not different.
So with little ability to assess the amount of ladling of bunk they received and without the ability to determine their motivations...it's hard for me to well think as they might have.I should add, I am certainly willing to learn and am very interested in your thoughtsEdited by Golffly, : No reason given.

You might be right. I have a very difficult time relating to things figuratively. Or even imagining how to do that.
So jar likely has a very good point, and my inability to think outside my norm doesn't allow me to relate to it.

If you were able to direct me to one time citations or indeed facts, that were contrary to Faith's opinion, resulted in her changing her opinion or acknowledging the validity...I would go through both the textual issue of the two creation accounts and the early copying of the creation myth issues, in depth.
Barring that, the effort involved would not seem to be an endeavor of a worthwhile nature.

No nukes,
What are you looking for exactly?
One can take the two biblical genesis accounts. Line them up and show the discrepancies. Is that what you'd call citation?
I wouldn't call it that hence the wonder.
I also know you are completely aware of this yourself and again that makes me wonder if you are asking for something different.Does it matter if somebody produces a name to go along with a relatively common sense approach of identifying the differences?
Or, am I way out in the left field, which is entirely possible.

Ah, authorship. That is a bit different or harder no doubt.
Where's Percy? :-)))))

I've read the book actually.
I am mostly giving you a bad time, for no real reason either.;-))))

Exactly a hypothesis. And if you read what is written on it, you will see that is based on some information other than the bible and in general is just trying to explain, for example, why the bible shows different god types or why the bible is as it appears.
If you decide on a conclusion first, as you routinely do, then look to make things fit your conclusion, you end up with stuff like this;
" Many scribes working under Moses but it was all Moses' production".
That for example is not a hypothesis, it is fantasy. Not only can you not provide any outside the bible information ( like the hypothesis does) but it is completely implausible.
So indeed remember the difference between the Documentary hypothesis and what you try and routinely do.

This is good summary of the pitfalls, in my view.
With things in life that are accepted fact. They start out with evidence and evidence builds until it's established fact and further information continues to support it.
With Christianity we have the reverse. It started out with a dubious assortment that was deemed fact. Numerous traditions deemed fact.
There was not the possibility to analyze the "fact" for the first say 1700 years because it was not available on a broad scale to the public. The fact needed to be just accepted.
The last few hundred years have allowed research into the purported facts. Instead of the "facts" being supported by research in all areas (from scientific to theology) and thus becoming established as fact. It's been the opposite. The more information becomes available the worse it looks. It's not improving with research it's getting worse with research.

Another non-unique piece of information that is so ubiquitous, it might be fact.
True believers of any religion, never let inconvenient facts opposing their view, interfere with their view.
So you have that going for you. More just " the same" as other religion's stuff.

It's okay Faith, you shouldn't discuss things with non believers anyway.And it seems the 2Timothy was likely a fake anyway.
( Actually 2John is highly suspect as well come to think of it)Tough spot for sure.

That's sort of what I'm saying.
Everyone loves one another here. Sometimes I don't love my mother in law because she comes over and drinks too much. Falls down, cut her head and then we take to her to the hospital and I want to kick her out and never have her visit again. Like at Christmas.
Oh, that was my inside voice.
No, I love everyone and should be welcomed in the house. But I don't believe some myth and then I can't come in even though the doctrine of errancy, is clearly within the doctrine of inerrancy.
Seems harsh.

We see things differently. It seems most times I see as you do but not so much with Christianity overall.
I am also a product of a Christian upbringing. Even had aspirations of being a priest.
I end up far removed from that.
But Christianity has dug a hole that it's not getting out of. It started out with assumed facts and fraud to support that. We find this out through mostly recent research. It's not the Christians trying to find proof, but rather Christians finding out they don't have any. Or rather worse than that, it simply appears to have many untruths to put it mildly. A more severe interpretation would be it is full of outright fraud that started before Eusebius and continues on today. Including fraudulent inserts in the bible. Fraudulent inserts in work out of the bible. Burning opposing books while carefully maintaining Christian references. It is the definition of bias and worse actually.
The truth does not need fraud or manufactured evidence. The truth simply is.
As you point out research is not tending to show anything positive or even suggestive that we have a legitimate claim. Rather it appears embarrassing bad.
All my view.

No, not wanting to project that image too badly.
Okay, you can call it something esle but we are discussing plenty right now that I call fraud. I can accept a less severe term if there is one.A Pentateuch that by tradition is from Moses. That is impossible.
So that started out wrong and has been maintained for a loooong time despite being wrong and indeed maintained as not wrong. So the need for self-correction of error seems absent.
We have Gospel writers who did not write the Gospels they have been named for. That started somehow and has been maintained over time and still is maintained as accurate by some. We can pick a more polite name to fit there too, but again a need for self-correction is lacking.
We have about half of Paul's letter's not written by Paul and that correction is not done or recognized . We can also call that something else I suppose.
We have other books in the NT that are not written by the names on the books. Also not recognized or corrected.
We have Josephus with a likely fraudulent later insert.
We have massive book burnings of beliefs that do mention Christ.
There is quite a bit more than this. ( You brought up Mark's ending. I call that fraud. The polite term is interpolation but really it's just making one book fit other books by adding into it later, without the need to actually explain that it was done until caught with pants down)If there is nicer term than fraud, that's fine. I am fairly cynical that way and it seems to lack a sincerity for truth or facts to enter in. The devout seem to have found no particular need to correct errors, or maybe were unaware? and left it for thousands of years. But today will fight any suggestion from research that the stuff is a bit more than suspect and hints at corrupt. I can accept a different term for it but fraud seems to fit.