No, it is all absolute nonsense. I will post a couple of etymologies from the OED (I won’t bother with the story of car horns in 1705).
Early ME. bileven, f. bi-, be- + leven:—OE., Anglian léfan, short. f. ᴁeléfan, WSax. ᴁelíefan, ᴁelýfan, a Common Teut. vb. (in OS. gilôƀian, Du. gelooven, OHG. gilouben, MHG. gelouben, glöuben, mod.G. glauben (earlier glouben, Gothic galaubjan):—OTeut. *galauƀian to believe, probably, ‘to hold estimable, valuable, pleasing, or satisfactory, to be satisfied with,’ f. galaub- ‘dear, pleasing’; cf. Goth. liuban, lauf, lubum, lubans, Teut. root *luƀ-, Aryan lubh-, to hold dear, to like, whence also love, lief. The original ᴁeléfan, ileven, ileve, survived to the 14th c., and the shortened leve to the 15th; the present compound, which eventually superseded both, appears in the 12th. The historical form is beleeve. Believe is an erroneous spelling of the 17th c., prob. after relieve (from Fr.). Cf. belief.
f. Caucasus, name of a mountain range between the Black Sea and the Caspian + -ian.
Dyslexia, from dys- +
Gr. λέξις ‘speaking’ (here taken in sense ‘reading’), first formed as G. dyslexie (R. Berlin 1883, in Med. Correspondenz-Blatt des Württemberg. ärztl. Landesvereins LIII. 209)
a. L. Iēsū-s, a. Gr. Ἰησοῦς, ad. late Heb. or Aram. yēshūăﻋ, Jeshua, for the earlier y’hōshūăﻋ, Jehoshua or Joshua (explained as ‘Jah (or Jahveh) is salvation’: cf. y’shūﻋāh ‘salvation, deliverance’, and Matt. i. 21), a frequent Jewish personal name, which, as that of the Founder of Christianity, has passed through Gr. and L. into all the languages of Christendom.
Com. Teut.: OE. god (masc. in sing.; pl. godu, godo neut., godas masc.) corresponds to OFris., OS., Du. god masc., OHG. got, cot (MHG. got, mod.Ger. gott) masc., ON. goð, guð neut. and masc., pl. goð, guð neut. (later Icel. pl. guðir masc.; Sw., Da. gud), Goth. guþ (masc. in sing.; pl. guþa, guda neut.). The Goth. and ON. words always follow the neuter declension, though when used in the Christian sense they are syntactically masc. The OTeut. type is therefore *guđom neut., the adoption of the masculine concord being presumably due to the Christian use of the word. The neuter n., in its original heathen use, would answer rather to L. numen than to L. deus. Another approximate equivalent of deus in OTeut. was *ansu-z (Goth. in latinized pl. form anses, ON. ‹ohookacu›ss, OE. Ós- in personal names, ésa genit. pl.); but this seems to have been applied only to the higher deities of the native pantheon, never to foreign gods; and it never came into Christian use.
***The ulterior etymology is disputed. Apart from the unlikely hypothesis of adoption from some foreign tongue, the OTeut. *guðom implies as its pre-Teut. type either *ghudho-m or *ghutó-m. The former does not appear to admit of explanation; but the latter would represent the neut. of the passive pple. of a root *gheu-. There are two Aryan roots of the required form (both *gˌheu, with palatal aspirate): one meaning ‘to invoke’ (Skr. hū), the other ‘to pour, to offer sacrifice’ (Skr. hu, Gr. χέειν, OE. ᴁéotan yete v.). Hence *gˌhutó-m has been variously interpreted as ‘what is invoked’ (cf. Skr. puru-hūta ‘much-invoked’, an epithet of Indra) and as ‘what is worshipped by sacrifice’ (cf. Skr. hutá, which occurs in the sense ‘sacrificed to’ as well as in that of ‘offered in sacrifice’). Either of these conjectures is fairly plausible, as they both yield a sense practically coincident with the most obvious definition deducible from the actual use of the word, ‘an object of worship’. Some scholars, accepting the derivation from the root *gˌheu- to pour, have supposed the etymological sense to be ‘molten image’ (= Gr. χυτόν), but the assumed development of meaning seems very unlikely.