You are misinformed. Again, I direct you to evangelical Old Testament scholar Gordon Johnston's review article summary of a century of work on the subject, which I've now cited several times and which you obviously haven't read (I couldn't find a direct link, but if you copy paste into Google Scholar you'll find several pdfs you can download):
Johnston, Gordon H. "Genesis 1 and Ancient Egyptian creation myths."
BIBLIOTHECA SACRA-DALLAS- 165.658 (2008): 178.
More than a century ago, the field was plagued by "parallelomania" where the slightest similarity between ancient texts was cited as evidence of a literary connection. And of course with the discovery of ANE texts like the Babylonian Enuma Elish similarities were noted and the standard academic view was that Genesis creation and flood accounts derived from such Mesopotamian texts. That view is obsolete now. It's now recognized that there is no direct literary dependence between the two. The field has advanced beyond the mistakes of the past. Mere similarity is not enough to demonstrate a direct relationship. More often than not today's scholars reject such claims, and recognize that instead of direct literary dependence, the different ANE texts reflect the same cultural stream of ideas and beliefs and practices that were held in common.
That's why the Genesis 1--Egyptian parallels are so striking and unparalleled. They are one of the very few examples of ancient ANE texts that display such a high level of correspondence, not mere similarities, but three different types of parallels: lexical, literary/structural, and thematic/conceptual.
As Johnston states, "The number of parallels and degree of correspondence between Genesis 1 and major Egyptian creation myths is remarkable. It is difficult to dismiss them as mere coincidence." Johnston quotes another scholar as saying, "There exists such a magnitude of parallels that it could not be by mere chance." And quotes yet another scholar who states, "The similarities in detail and structure are too close to be accidental."
There is a striking similarity to the four major Egyptian traditions, including even in the order of creation events, regarding which I already posted these diagrams on but I will repost them again:
Hermopolis tradition
Memphis tradition:
And here's a new screenshot I haven't shared yet:
And there's more on top of this. Again, I direct you to Johnston's article for details.
You also seem to misunderstand what it means to interpret in the original historical context, and think that it requires adopting the mindset of depraved, evil people who killed the Son of God. But that simply doesn't follow and is a misunderstanding of what it means to interpret in the original context. Hitler's actions need to be understood against the background (i.e., in the context of 1930s-1940s Europe). That doesn't mean we're adopting or condoning Hitler's actions or mindset, we're simply putting them in the proper historical context; which means reading them against the backdrop of what was going on in that part of the world at the time. Because words, practices, beliefs, social customs and practices, cultural symbols, idioms, etc., are constantly changing.
We can't understand Ancient Near East (ANE) shame-honor societies through the lens of American individualism. The Mosaic covenant (and what an ancient covenant was) has more in common with Hittite vassal treaties than American democracy and thus must be understood against the Hittite backdrop. If "9/11" isn't understood in the proper, original historical context, then someone a thousand years from now could mistake its meaning for a fraction 9/11 = 0.8181. A beehive is a hive of stinging insects in one context, and a hairdo in another.
If we read a 600 year old document about Mr. Jones being
naughty and Mrs. Smith being
nice, we'd think that Mr. Jones was bad and Mrs. Smith was good, and would be wrong on both accounts. Because 600 years ago
naughty meant to have nothing (to have naught), and
nice meant to be ignorant. If you read about a character in Shakespeare who in one of his works he called a "
punk," you'd think he was talking about a juvenile delinquent, when in fact "
punk" meant prostitute in Shakespeare's day.
That's why we have to read things in their proper, original historical context against the backdrop of the time when they occurred.
Also, as horrible and depraved as those pagan myths were that's the greater moral point: Genesis 1 is not condoning all that, but refuting it and saying it's wrong. Genesis 1 is a theological *polemic* ---- an attack against those pagan myths:
Finally, even for sake of argument if you don't find the striking magnitude of lexical, literary/structural, and thematic/conceptual parallels compelling, it still doesn't change the fact that out of everything ever written in the world for which we have a record throughout the entire history of human civilization from then all the way up to now, there is nothing on earth we know of that compares as closely to Genesis 1 as those ancient Egyptian pagan creation myths do. Genesis 1 has far more in common with those Egyptian cosmologies (and indeed, reads like a point-by-point repudiation of them) than it does with modern cosmology, astronomy, geology, biology, and today's debates on creation-evolution.