Hebrew etymologies for English words?

This is a popular exercise in kiruv circles, to show a bunch of English or foreign language words and "show" that they came from Hebrew, thus demonstrating the historicity of the Tower of Bavel incident in sefer Bereishit. However, while some words do ultimately derive from Hebrew, in other cases, Hebrew (both Biblical and Mishnaic) borrowed words from other languages. In other instances, such etymological proofs rely on the present surface form of the word, and its similarity to a Hebrew form, ignoring that the surface form of the word was different in the past. These are what are called "false cognates". They have the same form and the same meaning, more or less, but they derive from different sources.

Here I'll analyze a post that gives some awful etymologies, to "prove" a connection between Hebrew and English words.

English dictionaries trace words back to Latin. But they go no further.

It only makes sense most languages, including Latin derivatives, derive from the first universal language ever spoken, Biblical Hebrew. The Torah explicitly tells us that until the Tower of Babylon story, the world's populace spoke - only Hebrew (Braishis 11:1). 

Here are some English words that most probably have their source in Hebrew: 
More examples:
"שרף" means "Serpent"(Devarim 8, 15).
Speaking of snakes,
"פתן" is "Python"  (Tehilim 91:13).

"מסתר"(as in Rashi: Shir Hashirim 1:2) means "Mystery", 
a noun from the root verb "to conceal".

Rabbi Yitzchak Ginsburgh (lecture in 2005) says the word MURDER comes from 2 Hebrew words:
"Mered Or" (מרד אור), meaning - Rebellion Against Light [as in Iyov 24, 13]. Light connotes G-d, and murder is rebelling against Him Who created all people to live.

Probably Hashem mixed up the universal language of Hebrew into 70 different languages at the Tower of Babel; The "mix-up" probably kept the original language as a sort of "parent" to the derived words; But that is my guess.

Let us consider the non-Biblical Hebrew word "Parnas", which matches "Furnish". We are meant to think that P=F, R=R, and S=Sh. However, let us now trace the form and meaning of "Furnish" back in time...

The etymology of Furnish is:

furnish (v.) 

mid-15c., from Middle French furniss-, prp. stem of furnir "furnish, accomplish," from Old French fornir (12c.), from Vulgar Latin *fornire, alteration of *fromire, from West Germanic *frumjan "forward movement, advancement" (cf. Old High German frumjan "to do, execute, provide"), from P.Gmc. *fram- "forwards" (see from). Meaning "to provide" (something) is from 1520s.

That is, go back far enough, to when it supposedly branched off from Hebrew, and we will see that the "sh" ending disappears. So we can no longer match the -sh ending of Furnish to the -s ending of Parnas. Furthermore, the n was not originally an n, but rather an m. Maybe that m is from an initial n, but the surface similarity is no longer compelling. Furthermore, we see that "furnish" initially comes for the P.Gmc word "fram", meaning "forwards". Further, the purported Hebrew etymology did not even consider that the -ish ending was morphology, rather than root. Compare to the words polish and brandish.

Finally, the word "furnish" did not always mean "to provide". It only had that meaning from the 1520s, which was much later than the tower of Bavel. So Parnas / Furnish does not historically match in form nor meaning.

Most targets of this kiruv argument are not sophisticated enough to spot the obvious error. Indeed, most proponents of this kiruv argument are not sophisticated enough to spot that they are making an error.

Consider "Suit" vs. "Suto". S=S and T=T. However, here is the etymology:

suit (n.) 

c.1300, "attendance at court, the company attending," also their livery or uniform, via Anglo-French siwte, from Old French suitte "attendance, act of following," from Gallo-Romance *sequita, fem. of *sequitus, from Latin secutus, pp. of sequi "to attend, follow" (see sequel). Meaning "application to a court for justice, lawsuit" is first recorded early 15c. Meaning "set of clothes to be worn together" is attested from early 15c., from notion of the livery or uniform of court attendants (a sense recorded from late 13c.).

Trace it as far back as Latin, and you have an extra letter c or q in the middle. And possibly that t disappears as well. The surface forms no longer match.

Furthermore, the meaning of "a set of clothes to be worn together" traces back to the 15th century, or maybe to the 13th century. Earlier than that, it does not mean clothes. It means "to attend, follow". So the meanings no longer match.

Let us try Murder=Mered Or. Nice kabbalistic / mystical etymology. It also is incredibly unlikely.  MER or MORT as death exists separately. The true etymology is:

murder (n.) 

c.1300, murdre, from Old English morðor (plural morþras) "secret killing of a person, unlawful killing," also "mortal sin, crime; punishment, torment, misery," from P.Gmc. *murthra- (cf. Goth maurþr, and, from a variant form of the same root, Old Saxon morth, Old Frisian morth, Old Norse morð, Middle Dutch moort, Dutch moord, German Mord "murder"), from PIE *mrtro-, from root *mer- "to die" (see mortal (adj.)). The spelling with -d- probably reflects influence of Anglo-French murdre, from Old French mordre, from Medieval Latin murdrum, from the Germanic root.

Viking custom, typical of Germanic, distinguished morð (Old Norse) "secret slaughter," from vig (Old Norse) "slaying." The former involved concealment, or slaying a man by night or when asleep, and was a heinous crime. The latter was not a disgrace, if the killer acknowledged his deed, but he was subject to vengeance or demand for compensation.

Mordre wol out that se we day by day. [Chaucer, "Nun's Priest's Tale," c.1386]

Weakened sense of "very unpleasant situation" is from 1878.

murder (v.) 

Old English myrðrian, from P.Gmc. *murthjan (cf. Old High German murdran, German mördren, Gothic maurþjan; see murder (n.)). Related: Murdered; murdering.

This Hebrew derivation is just someone making an etymology up, and people are too polite or ignorant to point out that this is just making things up.

How about the non-Biblical Hebrew Payeis, with English Appease? P=P, S=S. However, here is the etymology:

appease (v.) 

c.1300 "to reconcile," from Anglo-French apeser, Old French apaisier "to pacify, make peace, appease, be reconciled, placate" (12c.), from the phrase a paisier "bring to peace," from a "to" (see ad-) + pais, from Latin pacem (nom. pax) "peace" (see peace).

That is, it has the meaning to reconcile as far back as the 12th century, based on the Old French. But that is from a phrase a paisier, "to bring peace". The French word pais does not mean reconcile but peace, and comes from Latin pacem. So, back in Latin, it does not have the same meaning of reconciling or placating.

Words take many forms and meanings over the years. And it is an error to assume that the surface form and meaning of a modern English word was the same as it was way back when the purported borrowing occurred. Rather, due to the shifts in meaning and form, by mere accident, two words in parallel languages might readily form a false cognate.