I had a mind-expanding moment in my theology training, when (in a thoroughly evangelical, bible believing and somewhat reformed leaning school) the professor took us through the initial chapters of genesis and hit on a lot of the points you made here. His point was simple: good hermeneutical method asks what did the original readers of this passage make of it? In other words, in its original time period, what was being communicated. Clearly at that point in time no-one was asking scientific cosmological questions, arguing thermodynamics or any other modern scientific topic. To come to Genesis from that standpoint is simply bad hermeneutics, and a great example of eisegesis if ever there was one.

The Genesis account uses the Hebrew term ‘bara’ – to create out of nothing – a word reserved for the creative process of God alone. The babylonian myth, things are created out of other things (slain gods, etc).

The Genesis account shows that God wanted Eden to be a paradise, and a place of rest – hard labour only appearing after the fall – and the babylonian myths have man created FOR labour, so that the gods could rest.

The Genesis account is clear that God wanted a relationship with the humans that had been created, no such relationship is desired in the babylonian myth.

To the people of its time period these are pretty radical concepts, and the conclusion you hit on here too. Great job!