Well, the archeology and anthropology of the Old Testament page is completely wrong. To start, there is no evidence the Jews were ever enslaved in Egypt. However, old Egyptian and old Hebrew are both afro-asiatic languages, developing out of a single precursor, which is the obvious explination of the similarity between Torah and Tarot. Or perhaps, the five was stolen from the five fingers, five senses, or five limbs, or perhaps even an even older religion. Furthermore, the earliest book of the OT, Job, predates the Roman prescience in the Levant, meaning Joheva cannot come from Jove, although the name may later have been applied to an established figure. It should also be noted that the Old Testmant does not refer to various demons, but rather one singular deceiver. Demons and unique angels did not develop as a concept until closer to the 2nd century AD. Now, there is some questions as to the role of gentile gods in First and Second Temple Judaism, in that the Torah seems to suggest a belief that they exist, but that the Jewish God was more powerful. This is something called Henotheism as put described by Max Müller. Here there is more of a similarity between Judaism and Hinduism, which is rarely actually practiced polytheistic, but in a much more henotheistic manner. Zoroastrianism is rather different in that the Good and Bad are powerful forces arrayed against each other, locked in a struggle from which only one can survive, while early and mid Judeo-Christian dualism is more of a cooperation between the two forces. Again, Job is a prime example of this. The use of plural in early Genisis is pointed to as a rejection of monotheism, but was written by the Elohimist, who has been suggested to be referring to either the Trinity (highly unlikely) or other God-like but non-God beings like angels. Elohi is the singular, and the rest of the OT uses it to refer to God. Another option that may be more up the website's alley would be that God is using plural to refer to Sophie, the feminine wisdom incarnate of the Gnostics. Finally, the list of parallels, too my cursory glance seems largely correct, but rather useless towards the end goal.

I won't go into detail about the other pages, but I will point out that the idea that archetypes are stolen is completely ludicrous. They are part of the collective unconscious that permeates human culture, and therefore develop in unrelated places by themselves. They are more than anything, symbols towards something deeper, and must be seen as such for any meaningful anthropological conclusions to be made. Saying they are stolen is like saying a smile is stolen.

Finally, the website quotes the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, which was an admitted hoax by pre-Nazi anti-Semites in hopes of spurring hate. Bad idea to quote hoaxes non-humorously, and especially bad when they were used to justify genocide.