Most of the ideas in the bible were inherited from the Canaanite beliefs.

The comparative parallels are real, well-documented, and should be conceded honestly — this is mainstream biblical scholarship (Kenneth Kitchen, *On the Reliability of the Old Testament*; John Currid, *Against the Gods*, an evangelical scholar who builds his entire comparative method around acknowledging these parallels) rather than a fringe skeptical discovery. But the objection conflates two different questions: 'are there shared literary/cultural forms' (obviously yes, and expected — any ancient text communicates through the conceptual vocabulary of its own time and place, a point of common grace/general revelation, not embarrassment) and 'what does Israel do with that shared material' (where the theologically significant divergence actually lies). On the flood: Genesis, unlike Atrahasis (where the gods send the flood because human noise disturbs their sleep, a capricious and morally trivial motive), roots the judgment in specific, serious moral corruption ('the earth was filled with violence,' Gen 6:11) enacted by one sovereign, morally consistent God rather than a squabbling pantheon — a moral and theological transformation of a shared ancient memory (most ANE cultures preserve some flood tradition, consistent with a real ancient event), not passive copying. On the Hittite treaty form: this is, if anything, evidence for the early authenticity of Deuteronomy's core rather than against it — Meredith Kline and Kenneth Kitchen have both argued the specific treaty structure (self-identification of the suzerain, historical prologue, stipulations, blessing/curse sanctions, witnesses, deposit and periodic reading) matches second-millennium BC Hittite treaties far more closely than first-millennium Assyrian ones, supporting an early rather than late date. The theological point of using this known genre is polemical, not derivative: Deuteronomy claims YHWH alone, not the Hittite Great King, as Israel's true covenant Suzerain — a deliberate repurposing that makes a genuinely novel claim using a familiar form. 'Rider on the Clouds' (Ps 68:4) applied to Yahweh is best read as deliberate polemical appropriation of Baal's stock Ugaritic epithet, subverting it to declare that Yahweh, not Baal, is the true storm-god and cosmic king — a rhetorical strategy of religious polemic attested repeatedly elsewhere (most vividly in Elijah's direct storm-god contest with Baal's prophets on Mount Carmel, 1 Kgs 18).

The consistent pattern across the Old Testament is subversive theological transformation of shared ANE material, not passive absorption — chaos-monsters like Leviathan and Behemoth, treated as rival deities in surrounding mythology, are demythologized into mere creatures under God's sovereign control in Job 40-41; this pattern of critical, polemical engagement with the surrounding culture is exactly what one would expect from an authentic prophetic tradition claiming a genuinely unique revelation, not a religion uncritically absorbing its neighbors.