The Trinity is biblical

First Con does not present evidence for Elohim being polytheistic in origin, but cites an old debate. I begin by saying that while yes common elements do exist in other myths, originality is linked to a unique combination of those elements: "Finally, Genesis shows God creating simply through his spoken word, not through magical utterance as is attested in Egypt. There thus runs through the whole Genesis cosmology "a conscious and deliberate anti-mythical polemic" (Heidel, Babylonian Genesis, 91). The author of Gen 1 therefore shows that he was aware of other cosmologies, and that he wrote not in dependence on them so much as in deliberate rejection of them" (1) I will now compare the Bible to other myths: Regarding the Genesis creation story, scholars note that no evidence exists to show Elohim is plural because it was borrowed from pagan myths: "The common view that the Hebrew account is simply a purged and simplified version of the Babylonian legend (applied also to the flood stories) is fallacious on methodological grounds. In the Ancient Near East the rule is that simple accounts or traditions may give rise (by accretion and embellishment) to elaborate legends, but not vice versa." (2) Scholars have rejected the notion that Genesis was copied from other myths (3). There is no evidence of direct borrowing (4). There is no correlation between Genesis and other myths (5). Therefore, the Hebrew concept of God is far different from the pagan concept of their gods. Sources: 1. Wenham, Gordon. Genesis 1"15, Word Biblical Commentary. Waco, TX: Word, 1987. 6. 2. Kitchen, Kenneth Anderson. Ancient Orient and Old Testament. London: Tyndale, 1966. 89. 3. "Thus most Assyriologists have long since rejected the idea of any direct link between Gen. 1-11 and Enuma Elish, and nothing else better can be found between Gen. 1-11 and any other Mesopotamian fragments.", Kitchen, "On the Reliability of the Old Testament", p. 424 (2003); his footnote reads "Assyriologists generally reject any genetic relationship between Gen. 1-2 and the Mesopotamian data because of the considerable differences; see (eg.) J.V. Kinnier-Wilson. In D. W. Thomas, ed., Documents from Old Testament Times (London: Nelson, 1958), 14; W. G. Lambert, JTS. n.s., 16 (1965): 287-300, esp. 289. 291, 293-99. and in ISF, 96-113, with addenda; A. R. Millard, TynB 18 (1967): 3-4.7. 16-18, and in ISIF 114-28; T. Jacobsen, in JBL 100 (198 1): 513-29, and translation, both now in ISIF 129-42, plus 160-66.", ibid., p. 591. 4. "However, it has yet to be shown that there was borrowing, even indirectly. Differences between the Babylonian and the Hebrew traditions can be found in factual details of the Flood narrative (form of the Ark; duration of the Flood, the identity of the birds and their dispatch) and are most obvious in the ethical and religious concepts of the whole of each composition. All who suspect or suggest borrowing by the Hebrews are compelled to admit large-scale revision, alteration, and reinterpretation in a fashion that cannot be substantiated for any other composition from the ancient Near East or in any other Hebrew writing. If there was borrowing then it can have extended only as far as the "historical" framework, and not included intention or interpretation.", Millard, "A New Babylonian "Genesis" Story", in Hess & Tsumura (eds.), "I Studied Inscriptions from Before the Flood: Ancient Near Eastern, Literary Approaches to Genesis 1-11", Sources for Biblical and Theological Study, volume 4, p. 127 (1994). 5. The details are not exact and most scholars deny any direct literary dependence but it would seem that both stories emerge from a common tradition or milieu.", Moyise, "Introduction to Biblical Studies", p. 33 (2004).