Wow, the author really thinks a lot of himself.
I'm so glad you brought up Baal. I just read an interesting book called "Workman Unashamed" by Christopher Haffner where the author first starts talking about the very name of God and its start as YHWH leading to the transformation into Jehovah, meaning "Lord" and its applications through the Bible and variations between the different versions of the Bible. Examples is Jehovah Elohim, Jehovah Rohi, and so forth (fascinating read). He then starts on Ba'al and the Bible where he states the following things:
Despite the fact that no Royal Arch ritual uses the word Ba'al...
Throughout the Old Testament, the word Ba'al is an ordinary everyday word, with ordinary everyday meanings. It is true that it is used sixty-nine times to represent a Canaanite god or gods, although often not as a proper name, but as a description. It is used as a proper name of other things or persons many times. For Example Ba'al is the name of a city in 1 Chronicles 4:33. In 1 Chronicles 5:5 and 9:36, it is a name of a Jewish person.
It is used even more frequently in combination:
Baal Gad, Baal Hazor, Baal Hermon, Baal Meon, Baal Perazim, Baal Shalisha, Baal Tamar, Baal Zephon, Baalah, Baalath (feminine of Baal), Baalath Beor and Baale are names of towns or places.
Baal Hanan and Baalis are names of kings.
Baal Berith, Baal Peor, and Baal Zebub (Lord of the Flies) are names of gods.
However, what is much more significant is the use of baal translated into other words. It is translated as "master" four times...
This is very important, as by analogy, Yahweh is the Ba'al of Israel. Another translation is "owner" (twelve times).
A third translation is as husband (eleven times).
He then goes on to talk about Stephen Knight's book, The Brotherhood, and debunks much of the Masons worship Ba'al myth:
With disregard for logical thought, Knight makes assumptions about the meaning of the second Royal Arch word which appear nowhere in any Masonic ritual, and then treats them as if they were true. He proceeds to suggest that the words of an obscure sixteenth century demonologist are relevant to twentieth century Masons. Knight is attacking only what his imagination has led him to believe is the meaning of the second word, with no reference the only relevant meanings - those which are explained to every new Royal Arch Mason.
He discusses an interesting theory to the beginning of the Royal Arch and its secret words, and how over time they have been slightly changed in pronunciation.
I don't agree with everything in the book, but it's an interesting read.