The author represented the exact same arguments religious people use, but in a non-religious context to show how silly it is. I'll explain the whole thing.
John: "Well no, you don't actually get the money until you leave town."
Me: "So why don't you just leave town now?"
Mary: "You can't leave until Hank tells you to, or you don't get the money, and he kicks the heck out of you."
Me: "Do you know anyone who kissed Hank's gluteus maximus, left town, and got the million dollars?"
John: "My mother kissed Hank's rump for years. She left town last year, and I'm sure she got the money."
Me: "Haven't you talked to her since then?"
John: "Of course not, Hank doesn't allow it."
Don't you see the utter wackiness of a God who would do this? In a non-theological context, it sounds like a deliberate attempt to mislead.
Mary: "But they don't know if the rock came from the Earth, or from outer of space, so it could just as easily be green cheese."
Me: "I'm not really an expert, but I think the theory that the Moon came from the Earth has been discounted. Besides, not knowing where the rock came from doesn't make it cheese."
John: "Aha! You just admitted that scientists make mistakes, but we know Hank is always right!"
This is the SAME argument you have used! "Science hasn't totally explained phenomenon X, so the Bible is right!"
Me: "You're saying Hank's always right because the list says so, the list is right because Hank dictated it, and we know that Hank dictated it because the list says so. That's circular logic. That's no different from saying 'Hank's right because he says he's right.'"
This is the same line of logic you use. God is perfect because it says so in the Bible, the Bible is correct because it is divinely inspired, and it is divinely inspired because the Bible says so. And that is no different from saying 'the Bible is right because it says it's right.' See how ridiculous it is?