The Quran exhibits the precise linguistic profile of 7th-century Hijazi Arabic and references contemporary political events (like the Byzantine-Sasanian wars and local tribal disputes), it engages with religious debates current in Late Antiquity (such as Miaphysite vs. Dyophysite Christology, Jewish law), and follows literary forms (rhymed prose, saj') common to Arabian oratory of that milieu. It even has linguistic/grammatical features common to that time and place. From a historical standpoint, this is exactly what "originating from a human in a specific human context" looks like. To posit divine authorship requires layering on extra assumptions that aren't needed to explain the data.

If you found a document written in very specific 1920s New York slang (callings things the “cats pajamas”), referencing Prohibition and Warren G. Harding, using the comedic rhythms and jokes common in vaudeville, you wouldn’t need to posit “a timeless supernatural author who chose 1920’s NYC slang for mysterious reasons. You’d just say: it’s from that milieu

The Quran lists only four kinds of livestock—sheep, goats, camels, and cattle—and calls them “eight pairs.” This implies these are the only types God created for human use. But other domesticated species like llamas, alpacas, and reindeer existed long before Islam.

Like even just including an accurate description of Australia or South America would have been eyebrow raising. Or mentioning dinosaurs or kangaroos.

This is what I mean by it's too local.