Indeed, nothing they wrote is of necessity infallible. The thing we see that ya'll tend not to see is that you pick and choose from among the things they say and use what benefits your philosophies while cutting the rest loose like a bad catch. That they are unreliable at best is without question. The reliable stuff is what we keep to - that is why we have 66 books and ya'll have substantially more, we cut loose the unreliable garbage and call it what it is. Ya'll wade through it picking out shiny bits of aluminum here and there, polish it and say "look, gold." Never mind that our mineral guide calls it aluminum. It isn't gold unless the guide agrees it is.
Sorry, as Columbo said, "Just one more question": (lighting the cigar), actually, rather more of a statement. These guys are reliable as long as it suits your purposes to say so, but when they are used against you, they somehow become unreliable. Now when I state it rather boldly, I'm barbecued for stating the obvious by the likes of you, RobbyS, Pegleg, Romulus, etc. When you try to carefully couch it, are we supposed to bite and say 'ah yes, I see your point,' then forget it? LOL. Too rich. Either they are reliable or they aren't. If they are to be considered reliable, you have a problem. If they aren't reliable, you have a problem. Either way, you're stuck. God is not the author of confusion.