Suppose you are a theist (classically defined) and are also open to the possibility of divine revelation. Suppose further that you are open to the possibility of a written revelation. Call the scripture of a religion its 'Book.' The three Abrahamic religions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, sometimes called 'religions of the Book,' each have their Book. Let's not worry about overlap, or translation, or influence, or sectarian squabbles over the canonicity or otherwise of certain writings. Let's think like philosophers in terms of big broad possibilities of interpretation. A philosopher worth his salt goes for the big picture. He is out to reconnoitre the conceptual landscape, not get lost in details. Off the top of my head, there are four main possible slants on scripture. These interpretations can be arranged on a spectrum from the radically transcendent to the utterly immanent.*
A. The Book is necessarily coexistent with God who necessarily exists. If I am not mistaken, something like this is held in mainstream Asharite Islam. The Book (the Qu'ran) is the Word of God and is co-eternal with God. This makes the Book as transcendent as the Muslim God. The Book eternally pre-exists in Arabic, Allah's language. The propher Muhammad took dictation. He was essentially just a hi-fi conduit, so to speak.
B. Although God is a necessary being, the Book exists contingently. God might have chosen not to have revealed himself scripturally. Nevertheless, the Book is God's inerrrant word. It is all true, every bit of it. The literal parts are true literally, the figurative parts figuratively. There is nothing in it which, properly interpreted, is not true. Moreover, the Book is the whole truth, the Last Word. I know Christianity maintains this about its Bible, and Islam about the Qu'ran. I'm not sure about Judaism.
C. Scripture is a product of divine-human interaction. It exists contingently and does convey divine revelation. But it is not inerrant. It contains errors and defects that reflect the fact that it is a product of divine-human interaction. God is not the author of the Bible, various human beings are the authors, but some of these at some times are writing under inspiration and thus are drawing truths from a transcendent source. Although the Book contains divine revelation, it is not the Last Word. Nor is it impossible that divine revelation is to be found in such writings as the Bhagavad-Gita and the Dhammapada, not to mention 'inspired' philosophers such as Plato and Plotinus.
D. No scripture of any religion is anything more than a human product. Although God exists, and the possibility of divine revelation exists, that possibility is not actualized in the Book. The Book is a merely human product. Everthing in it is of human origin. Some parts of it belong to the world's treasury of great literature, but even these best parts are nothing more than literature.
I incline toward (C). This strikes me as a sane, balanced position. It avoids the illicit hypostatization of the merely human found in (A) as well as the dogmatic immanentism of (D). It also avoids the
insuperable problems inerrantists create for themselves in (B) by trying to defend claims indefensible in the teeth of what we know about the world from the sciences of empirical fact.
___________________
*Bear in mind that I am an omni-blogger: I blog about everything. On some topics I am an expert who has published in professional journals; on other topics I am no expert but a mere student, cap in hand, teachable and correctable. So if you think I'm making a mistake, let me know. If you are polite, I may even listen to you. Just make sure you understand what I have written before you cut loose. And another thing. I take a dim view of mere specialists. A serious inquirer must be both a specialist and a generalist, a jack of all epistemic trades,
and a master of some.