Looking into Sacred Texts

Hi there!
This is an order of magnitude more sensitive than previous theological discussion...
I want to provide context: I think that ethics (which, from a secular perspective, culminate with humanist/liberal thought) no matter the background which led to the development of the 'core' ethics, are a necessary thing in order for the world to function. I think a lot of traditions receive undue criticism in these regards (and that deities are blamed often for the faults of people).

That aside,
how might traditions go about the quest to 'prove' that their work is the inerrant word of a deity? (some traditions/beliefs do not orientate the organisation around such a claim, those traditions/beliefs can be addressed perhaps at another time).
Could combinatorial linguistics/cryptography, cybernetics/systems thinking or a descendent method thereof, pave the way for traditions to examine, quantify and compare their text to all other possible texts of all other lengths?

Pinker observes there might be some difficulties in attempting to map texts, in many of his works (they're well worth a read, even if you don't agree with the premise of all of them, such as "Better Angels of Our Nature"...). Sure, there might be a few 'infinities' problems, but these are similar to the range of genomics problem from SETI. The real problem is if the set can be reduced to a countable few, or if a subset of only meaningful whole texts can be effectively isolated from that larger 'noise' profile...
Ken Wais http://abyssinia-iffat.com/Linguistic_Combinatorics.htm (I can't find a best contact email out there on the web, could you believe? If you have a best contact, or if you are Ken Wais, please relay that contact info through to me on my email at wonderistthinker@gmail.com so we can have a waffle)
Chomsky (monkeys and typewriters eventually culminating with Shakespeare/a target text),
and a number of other people on both Math Stack Exchange (mostly cryptographers and data analysts) and Biology/English Stack Exchange suggest that perhaps it is possible to do, even if the sets are 'countably infinite' beyond certain lengths, and even if things such as how meaning is conveyed are somewhat culturally constructed and problematic to model...
Language is the signifier and the signified: the written, and the mindstate, in combination, for an interval. We call that a reading... and each language is different.
Jorges Borges explores the concept in his "Library of Babel" concept (which is conceptually like a Mega-Library of Alexandria), which is a fascinating short story I highly recommend.
Oliver Burkeman also sort of references the idea of "museum of failure" in his "The Antidote"; also a great chuckle of a read with handy tips and jokes inside.
Dawkins also (his catchphrase 'genes and memes, baby') outlines roughly what is required to construct artificial-construct derived sets of knowledge... you need the genes and the memes

The quest for "pre-knowledge" is the linguistic equivalent of a perpetual motion machine
(in fact, perpetual motion machines are a subset of pre-knowledge, as the perpetual motion machine must have been designed and hence written in a language). You don't get quite out of the linguistic black hole all of that time and effort and words that you put in... still, it sure is an amusing concept to keep at the back of the mind; perhaps in place of dogmatic lessons or social conventions...

 I think there's lots of constraints - time, resources (ERoEI), certainty (LaPlace Demon/Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle) and the fact that languages reference other languages via loanwords and loanconcepts at an unknown rate... which might require a reference to an infinite variable, but that, in time and with quantum computing, it may be possible to overcome some of these limits, or perhaps still acquire a glean of some useful concepts at random anyhow --- even if the whole set cannot be represented or investigated substantially. I also suggest that this argument, along with the technological innovation rate, and an appeal to 'darwinist naturalism/stochastic nature of the universe' is part of the bedrock of the 'technocratic optimist' perspective.
I've attempted in the past, unsuccessfully, to use this as a strawman argument against Safeassign as a concept: why do I want to help someone who is clearly using some kind of algorithm such as I have just outlined, in order so that THEY may have better access to the set of all knowledge? Where's my slice of all that knowledge? where's my cut in the royalties? Nowhere. Pay your dues, the greatest double standard of the double standards thats a doubly double standard.

See, one might think that, if one followed and applied these Babushka Principles to language,
one would eventually determine (within a given accuracy of say +/- 10%) the set of ALL possible configurations, permutations, combinations... of a given language, for all conceivable format types...
in practice, how many individual texts do you know that exceed 10 000 pages?
If you answered the internet, hahaha great for you!:
except thats limited not by the amount of paper that can be produced, but by how long the power and other supply lines can be maintained... Yeah, its a much longer limit... or is it?

 You can see where this line of thinking is going...
Once we have that set of all words, we could then evaluate and compare all of the outcomes from that language --- all of the texts of all possible sizes and punctuations etc, and we could then map and find the 'unique' ones: texts which contributed to knowledge, texts which quote other texts...
(Garth Marenghi: If you have to buy one of my books, buy this one, which is all of them)
We may even find the "Encyclopedia Galactica": the book that contains all possible knowledge (which must surely be a book/text that changes at every instant to reflect the perpetually changing universe/multiverse) of all possible species in the universe ever. That is truly the needle in the haystack, and I feel therefore a much worthy candidate of bearing the title "inerrant work of a deity/deities". No such book or text at time of writing comes anywhere close to such a concept.
Not even this article: this is just part of the set of texts that realises that there are other sets of texts/subsets of text --- surely, a vast set. That got a little too "post-structural"/"existential" - I feel like my mind will melt from psuedoscience if the post-structural or existential/abstract levels are too high.

The problem is the sifting of the meaningful from the meaningless:
there must be a very high rate of repetition of meaningless/nonunique texts per language... theoretically, this must then leave (whilst still a large number) a set of only meaningful texts etc...
I don't mean the kind you recieved on your telephone: a combination of "L33TSpeak/Nadsat" and pseudo-erotica images, no, I mean strings that are in a line and all have cohesion.
See, once you have the set of "all meaningful words" (which must be conceptually a very large number, but in practice would be limited by a lot of factors...), you could then start to analyze sentence composition and structure... you could derive incidence rates (say at the sentence, paragraph, page, whole of document, whole of language levels) for all the words, and divide your page into a column and row setup(to remove grammar and punctuation problems...)
you could then derive the interactions between the words.

I think its meaningful
the length of sentences, and in turn
paragraphs, pages, and eventually the whole document.

As above, there were 4 words per sentence, then 7, then 7 again: low polysyllabic words.
Can you imagine all the 6 paragraph combinations? Luckily there are limits again,
typically in a given language (read left to right etc), there are minimum sentences and maximum sentences... Franz Kakfa is an example of the maximum. Usually, people don't write one incredibly unbroken sentence which encompasses all the thoughts and feelings as well as other narrative voices and perspectives into the one sentence without a pause or punctuation or just breaking the sentence off...

Wais, for fun, says imagine all the variants of "good", just a four letter word of a particular incidence rate and genre coefficient...
Good
good good
good good good
good good good good....

then

good good good good good good good good good good good good good good
good good good good good good good good good good
good good good good good good good good good good good good good
good good good good good.

So on and so fourth, for all different line lengths and positions (up to your whole document length).
thats just one word.
We've omitted punctuation, capitalisation and irregularities
(such as "shatner/beat style delivery" ie good... good GOOD good-good
g
o
o
d).
 Clearly, that 'good' type of meaningless drivel would be filtered out as non-unique/uniquely non-meaningful and an iterative function... but could that have been a code, and a unique meaning?

This method might return more results than a whole of document random method, which is randomly trying to generate sentences from that OCEAN of all possible sets (xqaszredgrti, for example, not a word last time I looked. If it is, no offense intended, and if I'm the first to use it, I hold copyright to it.).
There has to be a better way... can't we find some way to emulate the 'mindstates'/choice processes of the author -- which, the author in order to be real, must necessarily have a genome (as far as we yet know) to have had the thought, to have sifted through the language/invent language (Shakespeare style). The genome implies the neurological structure, from there, we 'simply' have to cycle through all the possible configurations the mind could have (basically volatages/neurons at various positions around the brain). Boom! We can get a construct that thinks in a way approaching an individual entity...
but then, the problem becomes which entities do we go to the trouble of emulating... 

Of course, words that form discourses would also have a separate identifier, so that you could compare those words in a particular context. For example, how often do Theological words appear in rigorous Cellular Biology works (hint: not too often, and how meaningful are pseudo-scientific texts anyhow)? How often do law concepts come up in creative writing (often especially around notions of defamation and 'intellectual property law', whatever that is...).

Another of the list, besides Encyclopedia Galactica, would be the History of Everything.
If language is indeed infinite, and there are indeed a number of multiverses (which is approaching infinite, though I would suggest would be limited too, given M-Theory implies only a particular range of universes might exist such as our own, and any beyond that range of consideration would be beyond our purposes at this time), then only one given "History of Everything" will correspond with a particular series of events per universe.
We'd want to find the one that corresponds only to our particular universe (one text out of infinity). And we'd want it to be just before the end/fate of the universe... that way we can utilise the information still... A classic example then would be BttF2: the grays sports almanac. Knowing the exact future of the universe (eschewing the problem of multiple observers, including potentially from other civilisations) would complete the reification/redundancy of people, and potentially lead to defeatist nihilistic existentialism... If such a text could exist at all... to obtain it in the present via a combinatorial linguistic method wouldn't necessarily cause a temporal/causality paradox, yet, if one acted on the knowledge obtained via a method other than time travel, a causality paradox may none-the-less ensue...  I wonder what the 'pliability' would be, that is, how much you could alter had you obtained pre-knowledge via a combinatorial/scientific method, before a Causality Paradox were to occur... thus invalidating your source of pre-knowledge... (Personally, I don't think it would be possible to obtain 'pre-knowledge', at least, not without supercomputers and vast resources and time...).

So, from the brief ramble and consideration of combinatorial/Babushka linguistics,
even just conceptually,
how can the myriad of traditions claim that their texts are the inerrant work of their own deity?
to be fair, how do crystal ball gazers (futurists, futurologists) make claims regarding 'the future'?
Some say its an inerrant word spoken in each age, or to the aspects of the day... yada yada. That would suggest the claim should be downgraded from 'inerrant' to 'literal' - as apparent contradictions and discontinuties consistent with a human-made document suggest inerrant to be a stretch.

Have advocates of 'divine and inerrant knowledge' run the numbers in all possible languages, and produced the set of all possible texts, and noted the pattern that their sacred text recurs most often across all the possibilities of texts in all languages? Better proof again might be if their text IS THE ONLY COHERENT ONE that can result from the method for a given size... again that'd require the claim to be altered though and defined: "This book is inerrant!* *for books written in a particular language, which descended in turn from 3-4 other languages and was authored by 1000s of people over time, only up to a certain document length.

Traditions avoid that hard work by suggesting the onus is on the non-believer to disprove, and that there is a cosmic/transcended author that perhaps wrote it all...

I leave it for you to arrive at your own conclusions,
I don't know, and honestly, there are other decidedly more real concerns that could be addressed, such as poverty or climate change, maybe even SETI at a stretch...