I have never come across any other works by Prof. Van Wolde in my OT excursions, but this is just an obviously flawed argument from the get-go.
Within the article itself…
“She said technically “bara” does mean “create” but added: “Something was wrong with the verb.””
So the word technically means “create.” But it doesn’t mean create, apparently?
The crux of this interpretation requires one to add a unknown nuance to the verb, namely “to separate.”
Yet simply replace “create” with “separate” in several passages below and see the problems.
Psalm 51:10- “Create in me a clean heart, O God.”
Isaiah 4:5- “Then the LORD will create a cloud of smoke by day and a glowing flame of fire by night over the entire site of Mount Zion and over its assemblies.”
Isaiah 42:5- “This is what God the LORD says—
who created the heavens and stretched them out,
who spread out the earth and what comes from it,
who gives breath to the people on it
and life to those who walk on it—”
Malachi 2:10- “Don’t all of us have one Father? Didn’t one God create us? Why then do we act treacherously against one another, profaning the covenant of our fathers?” (The meaning of “separate” in this usage would basically nullify the entire argument of this verse?!)
I would also argue that the trying to fit the Genesis account into the grids of other ANE texts is inherently flawed. Most OT scholars see the resemblances NOT as a copy-cat, but rather as a polemical device, using common images with key changes to support the unique theology of YHWH.
No doubt this story is reported not for its fundamental claims but rather because it provides yet more excuses against belief in God for those who so wish. After all, not even Christians believe God created the world anymore!