But dismissing everything that contradicts our earlier conclusions is an extremely bad practice, as I hope you would agree, as is assuming that everything is 100% accurate before doing due diligence in our homework.

Agreed. So then that begs the REAL question, as Pilate asked “What is truth”?
This discussion has prompted something very profound in me, and I think this is summed up in the following scripture [John 5] I cite the whole:

30 “I can do nothing on My own initiative. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is just, because I do not seek My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.
31 “If I alone testify about Myself, My testimony is not true. 32 “There is another who testifies of Me, and I know that the testimony which He gives about Me is true.

Witness of John

33 “You have sent to John, and he has testified to the truth. 34 “But the testimony which I receive is not from man, but I say these things so that you may be saved. 35 “He was the lamp that was burning and was shining and you were willing to rejoice for a while in his light.

Witness of Works

36 “But the testimony which I have is greater than the testimony of John; for the works which the Father has given Me to accomplish—the very works that I do—testify about Me, that the Father has sent Me.

Witness of the Father

37 “And the Father who sent Me, He has testified of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time nor seen His form. 38 “You do not have His word abiding in you, for you do not believe Him whom He sent.

Witness of the Scripture

39 “You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me; 40 and you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life. 41 “I do not receive glory from men; 42 but I know you, that you do not have the love of God in yourselves. 43 “I have come in My Father’s name, and you do not receive Me; if another comes in his own name, you will receive him. 44 “How can you believe, when you receive glory from one another and you do not seek the glory that is from the one and only God? 45 “Do not think that I will accuse you before the Father; the one who accuses you is Moses, in whom you have set your hope. 46 “For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me, for he wrote about Me. 47 “But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?”

Can’t we agree. from Jesus’ own statement, that Moses was, for the Jews, their only hope?. Can’t we further agree that IF the Jews of Jesus’ day had believed what Moses wrote, then they would have received Jesus as their Lord?
Apparently, even though the scriptures were themselves holy and perfect, they DID have a flaw in that those who relied upon the scriptures for their salvation were missing the point – that is – that perfection could not come even from a perfectly God-breathed text! The Jews missed that part.
So, your premise that the bible is “human” literature is true. But I believe its true in a different sense than what you are saying. It is human for those who think on a “human” level, but it is spiritual for those who think on a spiritual level. Jesus said so! Here is a good conclusion to what I am saying [emphasis mine]

17 For the flesh sets its desire against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are in opposition to one another, so that you may not do the things that you please. 18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law. 19 Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, 20 idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, 21 envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. 22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. 24 Now those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.
25 If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit. 26 Let us not become boastful, challenging one another, envying one another.

None of this is placed in jeopardy by the sort of reading I’m talking about

and…

Do you see where I’m going here?

No, I really don’t! I don’t understand the “kind of reading” you are promoting. For example, if I read something in the bible that I am convinced is 100% accurate because I have done my homework, and it turns out that my experiences confirm my suspicions, should I continue to hold on to that belief until I die, or shuold I always be searching for something even MORE convincing and MORE than certain about what I was already certain about?

That SEEMS to be what you are arguing for, and I am probably misinterpreting what you said (because I am not 100% certain )

Can you tell me what “knowledge” is being referenced here, if it is not knowledge gleaned from study of the bible?

My take: the knowledge is how to live, not cold, hard facts about this or that. This was always the sort of knowledge valued by the biblical writers, not to be replaced until the gnostic emphasis on esoteric, fundamentally impractical knowledge. Notice all the things the OT is said to be profitable for in 2Ti 3.16-17: teaching (διδασκαλία), reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness — why? — so the man of God may be perfectly equipped for every good work. Of these, only “teaching” isn’t obviously related to godly living, and even that certainly is if the modifying phrase “in righteousness” taken to refer to all of four nouns (as it probably is).

None of this is placed in jeopardy by the sort of reading I’m talking about. I mean, we already recognize the limits of biblical wisdom: the maxim, “Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it,” is widely recognized to be a non-universal principle, but another way of saying this is that it does hold true in all circumstances. This could be deemed an “error” in a strict concordist reading, could it not? But we are content to take it for what it’s worth, no worse for the wear. Do you see where I’m going here?

if Jesus did hear from God and did believe that the Tanakh was not eternal but could be fulfilled/superseded and that the religion it governed could pass away (in contradiction to many statements in the OT), then he already sounds a lot more like my position than the soft inerrantist’s anyway.

OK, yes, I understand and agree with this statement. It is entirely true.
Yet, I still don’t know how you view the bible’s worth for a new believer. I know that for me, it HAD to be the bible that informed me and brought my faith from a “child” to that of an “adult” in the Lord. It could not have happened otherwise (at least for me)
Now, I will not deny that even today people are being converted WITHOUT the written bible. It happens a lot. OTOH, GROWTH rarely happens without the bible.
I have heard many stories about missionaries going to another country, getting an initial response, and then doing nothing more than raising up a bunch of “babes in Christ” who grew no further.
Many times, the growth that occurs happens because of the personal charisma or leadership of an individual.
Is that wrong? Does God wish people to stay in a perpetual state of initial acceptance of Jesus, and nothing more?
Under your proposition, the bible cannot be trusted as a primary source of growth. Under your ideas, simply listening to the Spirit is all that is needed. Do the scriptures not say to “grow in grace AND knowledge” Can you tell me what “knowledge” is being referenced here, if it is not knowledge gleaned from study of the bible?