Books written by various authors compiled into what later was called the 'Holy Bible' may be more or less inspired, with a good mix of religious fiction, mythology and other embellishments. The same could be said to varying degrees with other religious tradition's writings. If 'God' is not a respecter of persons, neither is he of any community or cult. Furthermore, 'God' may not respect your 'opinion' or 'belief' about Him, because such may be erroneous. If you want to be a student of truth, you'll have to accept this possibility, and remain open to research and questions your assumptions.
God who is a Universal Spirit (Holy Breath) gives life and breath to all living things, the entire cosmos,...so is not limited to one point in space, much less only one human religious
cult-ure, tradition or holy book.
A good start on what the Bible actually is, honestly and objectively, begin
here. - considers what the biblical texts actually are, who they were written by, what for, cultural-context, reason for contradicting accounts, redactions, etc.
For a more cutting edge but intellectually honest look as well,
Bart Ehrman may help illuminate a few things
I don't see any evidence or reason to believe the Bible is somehow
totally inerrant or infallible, since it for one thing, doesn't claim to be. Even if the concept of the pure word of God is conveyed thru 'language',...language itself is an imperfect symbol relator, its only "symbolic", and furthermore suffers thru the 'distorition' of 'translation/interpretation', so that the words themselves are 'relative' and cannot be absolute.
Only what is absolute is absolute. Words are relative.
The Bible is a collection of many different authors, writing in different time-periods, different agendas and intentions, cultural-perspectives, aims, goals, etc. Each book must be considered within its own author's intentional/cultural context, and his own personal beliefs (as it affects the community for which it is being written), which reveals the purpose of the writing and its over-all aim, which may be subtely different from the authors of other books included in the same canon, showing revisionist tendencies or the natural course of 'progressive revelation', and this naturally so.
So, there is no
reason or
necessity to believe that your 'special compile' of religious writings is exclusively special or 'inerrant' or 'infallible'.
This doesn't discount a religious book's value or meaning, it just means it doesn't have to have your prescribed assumption or prescription of being 'inerrant/infallible' for it to be of religious value. If you claim otherwise, then it is only your own 'belief' that it is so, unless you can offer evidence otherwise.
