I wouldn't use the words "false God" - that's very loaded language. But of course - this is basically what happens when you have christians argue against the "god hates the gheyz cuz the bible sez so" arguments.

Again not liking the wording, but - basically yes. "God of the bible" is somewhat broad as there is no one single concept of god in the bible, but the simplest example is that Christianity assumes god to be trinitaric and the OT writings obviously did not operate under that assumption. They aren't incompatible with a trinitaric account, but if I just listen to what the torah says, for example, I would not gain the impression that the god described therin is trinitaric.

Probably not strictly speaking in the sense of "is false". But certainly in the sense of "here we reach a point where we need to affirm two mutually exclusive assertions" (or similar), which would imply that we accept to have reached a contradition which we can only gap through faith (or not at all). A commonly used phrase (much despised by thelogy profs, obv.) is Credo quia absurdum est. That basically catches the sentiment.

Tell us oh wise one, is God a rubber chicken? How do you know?

Let's here you wise insight.....

What would you say is more important (if there is a difference) to you for your belief; Biblical evidence or evidence external to the bible?

And a small followup question: I don't see the Bible as good evidence for a God. Do you think my stance on this is reasonable?

The latter and it isn't really close. However, that is taking "belief" in a fairly comprehensive sense. Meaning, it would include most of my moral beliefs, my religious metaphysics etc.

I think my language intuitions reach their limit here. The Bible isn't very concerned about "why" God exists. They just talk about the stuff that happens in relation with him. So, in one sense, the Bible doesn't even want to be good evidence for a God - it's a question that's not really on its mind. Insofar, I think your stance is reasonable. If you're saying that the medium 'text' is not a good candidate to be taken as evidence for something like the existence of a God (or the biblical God), I'd say "technically true, perhaps, but not really a qualified (quantified?) statement unless you specify alternative ways that would be historically viable and don't require a substantially changed notion of God".

If you're saying "I don't think the existence of the Bible itself is good evidence for a God" - that again sounds rather unspecific. Historically, Judaism and Christianity are somewhat of 'freak occurances' - their history is markedly different from the way religions normally behave. It's quite difficult to explain, for example, why after the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, and the deportation of the elites to Babylon, the Israelites not only clung to their belief in God but actually doubled down on it by transforming it to a full-blown monotheism. The normal "script" would've been to accept that Marduk is simply the more powerful God. Historically it's equally nonsensical that a figure like Jesus sparks a new religious movement that spreads like wildfire through the mediterranean. So in the sense that the Bible is a document that resulted from a history of religion that at some points behaved significantly different from how religions normally do, I'd say it's among the better pieces of (external) evidence there are for a God.