Of course, re. Babylonian stories, that still would not prove Gen. 1 & 2 are totally different stories with no relationship to one another.
Re. Elohim and Yahweh, BOTH terms are used together in chaps. 2 & 3, so, according to the Wellhausen school, one would have to suppose that some later redactor chose to glue together by dint of scissors and paste a snippet of "J", ending with "Yahweh", with a snippet of "E" or "P" that began with "Elohim". Such an artifical and bizarre process of combination extending through two entire chapters has never been discovered in the literature of any other nation or time. Like I said, Israel's neighbors all followed the same practice of having more than one name for their God. Source division on the basis of divine names does not go with the evidence of any other culture in the ancient Middle East. As per usual, the Bible is not being treated the same as other ancient literature, I wonder why there is a double standard??
Re. God and his loving ways, I'm wondering....have your parents EVER disciplined you for ANYTHING??? What kind of parent would it be that allowed their children to run roughshod all over them?? Did you ever put your hand on the element of a stove??? Would your parents be loving if they said, 'good boy, leave it there, it'll burn just nicely'??? If they saw you even getting close to that element they would more than likely pull you away before you do yourself a serious injury.
That's what God does all the time in the OT, people get themselves into trouble, and God has to act. Sometimes he tells them to leave where they are, sometimes (especially if the issues have been going on for decades or centuries) God has to remove them from the planet entirely, because the ones who are misbehaving are not the only ones he has to think of, he's got lots of other folks (present and future) to protect. You can be sure, however, if any of those misbehaving folks would have repented, God would have spared them. So he would not be being unjust or unloving in any way. Alas, some folks will not do what God tells them, no matter how many chances he gives them. That's just a fact of life in this world.
You seem to think sin does not exist...somehow, I think this world would be a far safer place if it didn't. I'm not sure where your doctrine of love comes from, but it sure isn't the Judeo-Christian one.
Re. gender, they did have queens in Egypt around that time, some of whom were quite powerful (Queen Hapshepsut was Pharoah from 1473-1458 B.C. apparently.)
Yes, I know the kind of critics I've been talking about take a late date for the Exodus. They do tend to favor just about any other nation in the area's chronology rather than the Bible's though, at least one that I know of, that they have chosen in the past, has proven to be unreliable.
As far as the reference to the slave labor of the Israelites in the city of Rameses in Exo. 1:11, it should be noted that even by the late date theory this would have to be regarded as an anachronism (i.e. a later name applied to the city than the name it bore at the time of their taskwork in it).
The reference to this work project occurs before any mention of the birth of Moses and Moses was 80 years old by the time of the Exodus event. It would have been impossible for Moses to have been born after the commencement of Rameses reign in 1300 B.C. and then be 80 years old ten years later! Consequently the city in question could not have born the name "Rameses" back in the period referred to by Ex. 1:11. Therefore, it's evidential value for the late date theory is fatally undermined.
It should also be observed however that even though a later name was inserted in place of the original name of the city that was current in Moses' time, this furnishes no more difficulty than to refer to Kiriath Arba as Hebron, even though narrating an event that took place there prior to it's change of name. Nor would a history of England be justly accused of inaccuracy if it spoke of Constantius 1 of Rome making a triumphant march into "York" back in a day it was called "Eboracum".
I think I should point out here that other than the names of God, I think every objection re. names and stuff you have given is allowed under the 'Evangelical View' in one of my recent messages. You mention redactors (which, of course, are not allowed according to that view) but other than the names of God, the changes you mention would not be the act of redactors (as in changing the fundamental meaning of the text), making up the text as they went along, but as editors (as in adding explanatory notes or terms to the body of the text for clarification), with the bulk of the text intact.
(Thank you for your clarification re. Kings).
Re. history, of course, most is recorded after the fact, I'm merely objecting to the centuries involved between events and records. No other nation is considered to have started it's history so late as modern critics insist the Israelites did...why would all other nations have histories written from early on and not the Israelites??? Again, another double standard.
These posts are getting long again!! Maybe we should stick to one post per issue lol.
™ Version 4.2
