Ennyhoo, I'm not quite sure what you're asking for here, but I'll try the following:

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)

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.

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'.

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.

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.