Firstly, while you want me to place Sumerian on the same etymological level as Egyptian - - I would suggest that the proper comparison between Egypt's influence on the Bible is the role that parts of the Afro-Asiatic linguistic tree had on the Bible (the Babylonian of the East Semitic branch combined with the Aramaic of the Northwest Semitic branch):
Most people are not aware of the older connection between Semitic and Egyptian language. The "unity" between them came at a time when the northern coast of Africa enjoyed more temperate weather and vegetation. Words like "yam" were shared, and meant "ocean" or just "big water". And when the desert divided northern Africa and the Levant into isolated pockets of humanity, divergence in the language followed.
The fact Sumerian is an isolate, and nowhere on any of these linguistic branches, should pretty well explain why Hebrew priests had little intention of parading their knowledge of foreign languages around, unless required by the topic.
You say there is " zero evidence is the transmission of any Sumerian words" - - well, this is what we are disputing, right?
You seem to be implying that my proposal can only be true if Sumerian words are casually found in the Bible as well, to corroborate my proposals about "Edom"="Iddim" and "Cherub" "Ker"-"Ub". I think in both these cases, the etymologies I have outlined make more sense that the traditional explanations. Would Jefferson just randomly sprinkle Greek into his proclamations when he can use all sorts of French words that people know?
Why would a Hebrew scribe make casual use of Sumerian pronunciations, when everyone who could possibly know cuneiform is more familiar with the Semitic/Akkadian pronunciations? And yet, ironically, I do think the scribes unwittingly did just that when they coined the word "Cherub"; for 2000 years, Bible scholars have been looking for the perfect answer to where that word comes from. And they are still debating it, because they haven't gone back far enough - - to Sumerian, kept alive by the Babylonian priests.
But Lo! @Korvexius, I think there is one example of exactly what you are looking for from me - - the use of Sumerian that seems obviously Sumerian, but has been purposefully veiled. You may have skimmed right over this particular verse in Isaiah with Yahweh doing the speaking:
Isaiah 54:9 "For this is as the waters of Noah unto me: for as I have sworn that the waters of Noah should no more go over the earth..."
In 54:10, we get the following clarifying comments:
"For the mountains shall depart, and the hills be removed; but my kindness shall not depart from thee, neither shall the covenant of my peace be removed, saith the LORD that hath mercy on thee."
What an interesting euphemism! "... the waters of Noah..."! How puzzling! Certainly the waters that swept away life forms by the thousands are not Noah's at all .... but Yahweh's waters! Noah had to contend with them. Noah had to build an Ark. We could say the Ark is Noah's. But can we really affirm the phrase "Waters of Noah"?
As you know, the pagan ANE awarded the waters of the world to the care of the Sumerian deity, Enki, later to be renamed Ea, by the Semitic Akkadians. Written in cuneiform, Enki is a two-syllable word: "(e)N K(i)", where I have put the vowels in parenthesis.
When considering the flood stories originating out of Sumerian, Akkadian and Babylonian literature, I have marvelled at the diversity of the names of the "hero figure" who builds the boat that saves a human remnant from drowning:
One name is:
1] Ziusudra = Sumerian: 𒍣𒌓𒋤𒁺, lettered ZI.UD.SUD.RA2 or pronounced Ziudsuřa(k) "life of long days";
[Note: Recorded in Greek as: Ξίσουθρος Xisuthros. A late version of The Instructions of Shuruppak refers to Ziusudra.]
2] Zin-Suddu of Shuruppak = Sumerian: 𒍣𒅔𒋤𒁺, lettered ZI.IN.SUD.DU
[Note: listed in the WB-62 Sumerian king list recension as the last king of Sumer prior to the deluge. He is subsequently recorded as the hero of the Sumerian flood epic. He is also mentioned in other ancient literature, including
The Death of Gilgamesh and The Poem of Early Rulers.]
3] Akkadian Atrahasis ("Extremely Wise");
4] And the Akkadian Utnapishtim ("He Found Life").
5] And lastly, of course, we have the Biblical hero of the flood story, whose name in English is Noah.
In Hebrew, Strong's Hebrew # 5146, but not pronounced "Noah" in Hebrew - - but:
No' - Akh
Why should the hero's name be Noah? It doesn't look anything like the earlier names assigned to this hero. Certainly this is evidence that Biblical dependence on the pagan literature is more flawed than I admit?
It's a name that is supposed to be derived from the word for "Rest". Why would the puzzling phrase "Waters of Noah" even appear on the pens of those who wrote Isaiah?
But don't you see it? The phrase is actually "Waters of No-Akh" ! And in writing, the semitic practice of writing just the consonants seems to tell us the whole story:
"The Waters of N(o)(a)K" < < For centuries years, scribes trained in cuneiform have been reading this Sumerian myths that presented the world from this view . . . but more like this:
"The Waters of N.K."!
Now this sentence makes sense. For Sumerians, the world's waters have always belong to Enki, and then they became "the waters of Ea[/Yah]".