Blotty, no doubt you've been around people who hold what's often called "fringe" ideas. Sometimes those ideas have merit but, as yet, not gotten the attention of the experts in the field. More often however the ideas have been reviewed and discredited or at least dismissed due to lack of supporting evidence. Humans in general have a hard time with changing, especially if the idea has emotional importance to the person. In the internet age fringe ideas run wild and are spread rapidly. The good thing is the responses to these ideas are also available. It generally takes 10 minutes of googling to get a perspective.
Those who wish to retain discredited ideas give lip service to the value of fact checking but seldom really pursue it. In fact often the believer in a discredited idea insists everyone else is guilty of ignoring evidence, the evidence they see as persuasive.
Learning how to detect bias, think critically, and openness to disproof are more important now than ever.
When it comes to deep religious history, the evidence may be inconclusive or not even heavily favoring one position. That is hard to accept, but disciplined minds have to.
Sometimes not having sufficient evidence for something can in it's own way be evidence.
eg. Since you seem to be focusing on the Jewish name for God, consider what the lack of evidence suggests. Maybe the name isn't all that relevant.. It apparently wasn't important to the writers and editors and manifestly not important to the God, assuming you see God involved in the writings.