As I read the above thread, I considered the role of the ego in humankind's attempt to search for a meaningful relationship with the Creator. The ego I believe prevents frequent use of statements such as "I don't know" or "I am not sure". It appears much easier to say "the way I believe is right, and you are wrong". It is comforting I think to feel that way sometimes. Normally, when I encounter my Fundy friends I discuss with them that if they were to have been born in the Middle East, their outlook on Christianity would be completely different. I think ego drives humans to believe that there is one way North and it is theirs. It seems pretentious in my view for a group to think they have the corner on the market. I am baffled that the inerrant and infallible argument could possibly remain in the face of such scholarly criticism to the contrary. As Dr. Bart Erhman has stated time and again, there are more discrepancies between manuscripts of the New Testament than there are words in the New Testament. How does the argument stand knowing that?
When I was younger, I took a course on the Book of Job. To my surprise, I learned that substantial beginning and ending portions of the book were added by scribes at a much later date and were not part of the original. They did so, it is thought, so that it read better and made sense. Did God realize that humans had erred and took action to place the beginning and end portion into the book?
My sense tells me no. These are literary products created by humans to describe attempts to understand God. I think the same could be said for the Ghita, the Qu'ran, the Tao and other spiritual writings.