[throwawaygal7]

Criticism of religion as derivative is generally reserved for the abrahamic faiths you don't generally see it done to say Bhuddism. A sort of early modern bias creeps in, the idea that a religion is invalidated by showing that it arose among men at a certain time. of course, that this is exactly what religions generally claim. I'm struggling to think of any sects for whom this is actually a deal breaker... maybe some American fundamentalists?

it's common to interpret the structure of genesis as being a riff off of earlier myths, in a critical way. The structure is often parallel, but also often different as though to draw a comparison to the mind of the reader. We see a harmonious creation account rather than a violent one, and a creator God who is master over both earth and water.

Anyone who studied religion at an undergraduate level (or at a good highschool) knows this. The specific narrative you're weaving is , however, highly speculative.

It should not surprise Christians or jews that the ancient Israelites recognized other gods, this is covered extensively in the Bible. There are frequent references to the 'God's of the nations' in the old testament, particularly evident in the greek.

The existnece of miltiple lower case G 'gods' - is still held in even the New Testament 'principalities and powers' are 'gods over the nations'. I think, it is fair to say that modern jews and Christians alike still hold this to be true.