I thought of that possible interpretation as I was writing the subtitle. Subtitles like these lend themselves to confusion or misinterpretation because they're necessarily brief. What I was trying to get across is that this structural advantage has nothing to do with the concept of divine inspiration or with the contention that the Bible was so inspired. I was just trying to make the subtitle less cumbersome, but maybe that made it more confusing. Either that or you're grasping at straws.
To address your point, though, I certainly don't think any text has been written directly by the supreme creative power since that power is obviously nature, which is impersonal. The theological notion of "inspiration" is vague enough to be cheaply unfalsifiable. All great art could be considered divinely inspired in that artists respond to profound realities. All the world's religious scriptures are human-made fictional or nonfictional narratives. At best they're great works of human art.
I talk about the notion of scripture as being divinely inspired here:
