As I stated numerous times before, there is a difference between linguistic similarities and linguistic dependence where you have made the sweeping assumption that they are the same --- unfortunately for you, they are not. You brought up literature of cultures that predate the Pentateuch, something I assume you fancy yourself as an expert on. A good example between differences between similarities and dependency would be the biblical story of the Flood having no assertion of literary dependency from The Epic of Gilgamesh. Even scholars that do think the Hebrew accounts were dependent on the earlier Mesopotamian accounts are quick to point out that they are not literary dependent. Though the biblical Flood narrative and the Gilgamesh poem are superficially similar, the differences between the accounts are quite significant.
This is where you are incorrect and you really need to study linguistics. First off, the Israelite's, Canaanites, Babylonians, Akkadians (especially the Akkadians), even the Egyptians (originally Afrocentric language) all have a Semitic based language, they are interdependent on each other while in Mesopotamia. The only language in the land of Mesopotamia (ancient Iraq) that is an isolate language is the Sumerian language, while the Hittites on the other hand speak a Indo-Euro language, this is due to migrations en mass.
So my question to you, what on earth are you talking about?????
Furthermore, the Akkadians develop Semitic mother tongue based on Sumerian language when they integrate and conquer them.
The Epic of Gilgamesh (I would go further to state that the original epic is in a tablet found in Nippur, which you didn't bring up at all) is not the Biblical flood story at all, it is the Epic of Ziusudra, why on earth would there need to be literary dependence between Biblical flood myths and Sumerian flood epics? There cannot be, Sumerian is not a Semitic language, Akkadian is a Semitic language, did you miss the stories of Babylonian Atrahasis or the Akkadian versions as well (these versions predate the Biblical epics as well)? The Bible is obviously off, by a long shot. For example the Bible uses Tevah to describe the Ark, Tevah means to be startled or alarmed, it does not mean Ark at all, go look up Strong's Concordance, or use whatever means you want.
There are differences between the Babylonian deluge and the Sumerian deluge as well between the Akkadian deluge and Sumerian deluge. For example in Sumerian it is "Father Enki" who tells Ziusudra to build an ark, while in Akkadian it is "Ea", this is due to loan language from Sumer. This is changed in Biblical literature.
When you understand this, it is easy to distinguish which God I am referring to when it is written through the context of "God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob." "Elohim" in the Bible could be used either in the singular or plural depending on the context and the linguistic qualifiers that surround it; yet it is spelled the same regardless of the use. These considerations are important, because even though "Elohim" is most often translated as God, it can, for example, also be properly translated in the plural, as gods. Even when the word is translated as "gods," it can either mean inanimate gods, idols, or supernatural spirits, angels or demons - presenting themselves as false gods. Elohim can also mean "divine beings" in general, or even us, as Jesus himself said, "Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?" (John 10:33-34)
Wrong, "God of Abraham"; as I pointed out before Abraham is known as a Moon God in Canaanite literature, and most scholars do not know whether Abraham actually existed. Hence, there is no reasonable conclusion as to who Abraham actually was.
Elohim from the singular El include beliefs from the Ugaritic and Canaanite religions, which will predate the Israelite's considerably. Unless you think that in Ugarit and Canaan El wasn't worshiped?
Elohim can be used as a plural, El is generally singular. You make the assumption that the Israelite's used the term "God", when they clearly did not. Either we will see usage of El or Yahweh in general. I do not know in what context you mean "Elohim" essentially, and neither did the Israelite's.
To further this I provide that, we look at the exegesis of a few biblical passages and some Ugaritic parallels. Many scholars have take Psalm 45:7 as evidence for the royal theology of the king as “divine”
(’eˇlo¯hıˆm): kis’aˇka¯ ’eˇlo¯hıˆm ‘oˆla¯m wa¯‘ed,
“your throne, O divine one, (is) forever and ever.”
The versions generally render the syntax in this manner. Such ambiguity may be as old as the text, and the interpretation of ’eˇlo¯hıˆm as God perhaps contributed to the survival of such an otherwise bald biblical reference to the king’s divinity.
The “muted reflex” of the notion in Zechariah 12:8 reflects, however, the background of a “high” royal theology, which applied ’eˇlo¯hıˆm to the monarch. The description of the king as ’eˇlo¯him in Ezekiel 28:14 may represent a polemic against this notion of the monarchy.
Furthering this we can compare 2 Samuel 14:17, 20, where David’s ability to judge makes him keˇmal’ak ha¯’eˇlo¯hıˆm, “like the angel of God.”
The rest of your post is found to be wanting, and displays a pseudo understanding of historical accuracy and biblical context. You can bring up Bible verses if you want, but expect to be called out on it if you cherry pick verses to suit a pattern to fit an assumption. Without any context, one could spend a lifetime going into an endless kaleidoscope of metaphysical musings from a verse or two.
Please do point out where it is "wanting" and please do show where it is a "pseudo" understanding. Please let's not be vague.
My point can be divided into three points, and are best considered on why using linguistic similarities as grounds of borrowing for structuring belief systems is a flawed approach:
1. Lack of textual substance (biblical and non-biblical) that reflect commonality between God and the other gods.
2. Lack of linguistic and literary dependence.
3. The adaption of etymology in Mesopotamia as confirmation of the Israelites cultural and religious dependency is a non sequitur.
No one is using linguistic similarities, you make the assumption that it was the epic of Gilgamesh and then the Biblical epic. Incorrect, first off it is "Bilgamesh" in Sumerian and "Gilgamesh" in Akkadian, Babylonian, so by literary and linguistic dependence I do not know what you are talking about????
The Israelite's originally arrive out of the land of Canaan, which both spoke Canaanite language. In fact modern day Hebrew is the only defunct Canaanite language in existence, go research it. It's developed via Phoenician.
There is no "adaption of etymology", it is an adoption of language and creation of a new language, from Sumerian (a language isolate) to Semitic. Etymologies at the time are not well understood.
And by the term "God" I have no idea what you mean.