Your claim #1: The claim that God is omniscient does religion more harm than good.
Your claim #2: Saying that Holy books are the word of God is an insult directed to God.
Your claim #3: If God wanted to write something down he'd do it himself.
So, accepting your premise that Holy Books are not God's Word, they are therefore meaningless to your defense for your claims. Carry on. We await your well thought out, reasoned, evidence-based support for any of your claims, sir. Or madam. Or non-binary bipedal structure...gotta be PC for the Yahoos.
Update: one of God's attributes would be Infiniteness. That means God is not time-bound, which means the statement "God knows/does not know the future/past, etc, is absolutely meaningless. It's like asking for number of corners on a circle.
Update 2: putting aside my sarcasm, seriously, theists and non-theistic thinkers can, without animosity, talk about what qualities a Supreme Being would have, if He exists. Omniscience, omnipotence, infiniteness, perfection, holiness, etc. And each of those qualities will dictate what we should and should not ascribe to such a Supreme Being. Some common ideas that are easily wiped away by considering his attributes are knowing the future, having human features like eyes or hands, or not having the ability to control something. Or doing anything evil, unjust, or communicating untruths.