The plans of Mice and Men

Since the blog is silent I thought I'd throw out another topic. I think it's one we all must wrestle with from time to time. That is, how do we know God's plans in our lives vs. our own?

To explain, let me give a little background overview of how I have approached the issue. In the beginning, the first thing God commanded was to multiply, and subdue the Earth. God doesn't tell Adam what that is supposed to look like. He gives him free reign within the few commandments he's given, and of course I note in this that Man's authority descends and therefore is subordinate to God's authority. Next, God brings the animals to man "to see what he would call them." If God wanted to control man's every thought, word, and deed than it would seem logical that he would give Adam commands or inspiration as to what to call them; it would seem that is not God's intention than. Next, God who is omnipresent, all knowing, and willing to protect man by giving him commands to preserve his life...chooses to be absent in the day of temptation, in fact it seems based on how God "walked" in the cool of Garden that even though he can be everywhere at once, he isolated his presence down to a small part in the garden at anyone time. So it's not a stretch to imagine that he was frequently absent from the garden.

From this I gather that God's way is for us to submit our ways to his, rather than holding our every action awaiting the go ahead. 

Further, I consider the breath of scripture and considering the long gaps in people's lives between which God does nothing obvious to people (though no doubt he was ever working in the background), which leads me again to reinforce the same idea that God wants both to play, but also to sit back and coach. Just as a Father intervenes to save and to teach, but often stands back to let the child discover and practice. Still more, I consider all the commands where God instructs us to pursue our desires, ambitions etc...

Deu 12:20 When the LORD thy God shall enlarge thy border, as he hath promised thee, and thou shalt say, I will eat flesh, because thy soul longeth to eat flesh; thou mayest eat flesh, whatsoever thy soul lusteth after. 
21 If the place which the LORD thy God hath chosen to put his name there be too far from thee, then thou shalt kill of thy herd and of thy flock, which the LORD hath given thee, as I have commanded thee, and thou shalt eat in thy gates whatsoever thy soul lusteth after. 

God wants us to pursue our desires...

Deu 15:9 Beware that there be not a thought in thy wicked heart, saying, The seventh year, the year of release, is at hand; and thine eye be evil against thy poor brother, and thou givest him nought; and he cry unto the LORD against thee, and it be sin unto thee. 
10 Thou shalt surely give him, and thine heart shall not be grieved when thou givest unto him: because that for this thing the LORD thy God shall bless thee in all thy works, and in all that thou puttest thine hand unto. 

God will bless us in our works AND in all that we put our hands unto, if we obey.

Pro 12:5 The thoughts of the righteous are right: but the counsels of the wicked are deceit. 

Pro 16:3 Commit thy works unto the LORD, and thy thoughts shall be established. 

Pro 21:5 The thoughts of the diligent tend only to plenteousness; but of every one that is hasty only to want. 

In all three of those the word thoughts can be rendered plans, it is the same word that is rendered in Jeremiah as "I know the PLANS I have for you..." So it would seem that God is interested in establishing the plans of the righteous/commit their works unto him. I have had it presented to me that, a man should have no plans rather wait on the Lord, but if that is the case than what point is there in having a mind at all? Why am I given the capacity to think if my only function is to wait and listen? My experience, if my thoughts are necessarily useless to God, is that my thoughts only get in the way of listening to God, therefore it would seem that thinking is a distraction from God. 

I reject this because what point would there be in study if my mind was not to be engaged? Sure the Spirit discerns the scriptures, but doesn't he use the mind to process? How can a man be prudent/cunning if he can't understand where he's going or make any plans for it?

Pro 13:16 Every prudent man dealeth with knowledge: but a fool layeth open his folly. 

Pro 14:8 The wisdom of the prudent is to understand his way: but the folly of fools is deceit. 

Pro 14:15 The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going. 

Pro 14:18 The simple inherit folly: but the prudent are crowned with knowledge. 

The cunning (meaning the one who makes bare in other words he sees through), deals with knowlegde; understands where's he's come, is and goes; looks to what's about to happen and grows in knowledge.

Pro 22:3 A prudent man foreseeth the evil, and hideth himself: but the simple pass on, and are punished. 

Pro 27:12 A prudent man foreseeth the evil, and hideth himself; but the simple pass on, and are punished. 

The prudent man must forsee evil. If this was meant to be "the praying man listens to God and does seemingly random things because God sees evil coming," then why the emphasis on knowledge and understanding? Why be cunning, if all I have to be is tuned in?

Having said that, what do we then do with the times when God does intervene? We are not told of any reason that Abraham wanted to leave his father's house and strike out on his own, traveling through countries where he felt afraid for his life. Or Hagar, did she think it desirable to be kicked out of Abraham's protection? Did the apostles think the ministry was a better idea than fishing or tax collecting?

Clearly God also has his own plans...destinies if you will, a purpose higher than our own plans...left to ourselves, I think most of a our plans would end up being quite petty anyways. But, and this is where it meets the real world, it would be easy to have an arch angel or a booming audible voice come to me with a message and go...hmm...ok, whatever you say. But I've never had that happen. In my experience, my 'promptings' come in the form of doors closed in my face, biblical prohibitions, obvious wisdom, and usually lastly somekind of intangible in that general order. I suppose sometimes, I do have a very persistant urging that won't go away, but I can't think of anything more major than personal confession or a hard word that that has influenced. Not to say those are minor things, but I've never felt some really powerful inner urging to...move somewhere or marry someone or buy a house, sell a car, anything.

But I have met people who have very strong feelings about such things. And in some cases I see a lot of their choices and I can't believe that God would be so random. And I mean that, I don't believe God is so random. It seems almost cruel to constantly tear a man's work down or to never let him see any purpose behind his labour. I mean which is worse to have no goals because you believe God is just going to take them away, to have goals only to feel that God is tearing you away from each of them before you can accomplish it, or to firmly hold to a plan (that has no sin mind you) and be unable to tell when God is trying to change your course?

I'm not saying those are the only possibilities, or that I completely hashed out anything. But these are actually some questions that I am personally facing. It started the other day...well actually it started earlier, but that detail isn't important. When I had someone else, who strikes me as making more effort to be atuned to the Spirit, suggest to me that a course of action that I had thought much over and committed considerable resource to accomplish believing it was the right course was in fact going to lead to considerable evil consequences. In this particular case the reason was based on a number of dreams that I had had, and that another third party had had. I pretty much rejected the idea for whatever reason, but I am still thinking and praying about it.

In my search, I kept coming to two things that recurred. On the one hand, I am increasingly frustrated by the idea because, I'm like "how can it possibly be of God to have them 'waste' all this time, effort, and money, forsake everything that was prayerfully and carefully planned before; all on account of a couple of dreams that are vague and the interpretations do not account for the whole dream?" 

But the other thing that came to mind was a question. See, these series of dreams do seem to share similar elements...and the people to whom these interpretations have occurred are people to whom a certain amount of...preconception seems to have been given. For example in the current situation there's a person who dreamed about meeting people by face and name before she actually met them. In another, case someone who wasn't involved in this incident saw a poster and then interpreted it as a warning, passed it on to another set of people, who failed to relay it to the subject of the warning and that person became deathly ill from an unusual incident. 

So the question that came to me is, if it were God trying to turn the wheel...what would I take from him that I would accept as proof? How could I test him and know that it was him speaking? Especially if my understanding of the situation is opposite of the interpretation?

Fire away...

Mitzvah of the unbetrothed woman

Exo 22:16 And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife. 
17 If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins. 

As I was studying the concept of betrothal (thanks again to everyone for their support!), I came across the commands regarding rape in Deu 22:23-29, I remembered it and of course noted the difference in penalty for betrothed vs. the unbetrothed and it reminded me of the commandment above. What's stood out to me, is that there is no sin offering in regard to this command. No talk of iniquity. It seems in fact that the iniquity would not be in the fact that the man enticed the woman and they had relations, rather it would be if he failed to endow her to be his wife. This struck as odd considering the modern view on what fornication is. 

So I'd like to hear other thoughts on this. Secondly, what is the spiritual significance of this? If God gives human relations as a picture of his relationship to man...for example, why are people in the church so dead set against divorce, because if God allows it than what does it imply about his marriage to individuals of the church. So what does this imply that it seems that a man could sleep with a woman and there be no sin unless he fails to endow her to his wife? And if we can answer that, then what is the significance of the laws of rape in the case of the unbetrothed where instead of death the man must again pay and marry?

What are we anyway

As I started to look at the sin nature I noticed that the subject was intricately linked to how we are made.  Things like flesh and spirit seem to come up often when discussing the sin nature.  So before we can tackle that I suppose it would be good to cover how we were created so that we are on the same page there before we go on.  In Genesis God made a physical body and then breathed into it the breath of life and it became a living soul.  It seems fairly simple at this point.  Body plus breath equals living soul.  Later on however different concepts start to come into play.  We notice that man has a spirit, and then when we are saved we have the spirit of God as well.  Spirit as a word is also linked to the word breath.  Which may mean that the breath of life is the spirit, but then how did we ever get our own?  wouldn't everyone's spirit be Gods since we cant really breath the breath of life into ourselves.  Then we hear about the heart being wicket and deceitful but the hebrew attributes the heart as being more like what we would call the gut.  The scripture also says "the thoughts of the heart"  which seems to imply that the heart as a thinking capacity.  So is our heart more like our mind?  If that is the case where does our mind stop and our spirit start because I rarely find a conflict between what my mind thinks and the what I ought to do, it is usually going against my better judgment that leads me to sin.  Just some thoughts, to throw out.

Spiritual gifts: Put on your gym clothes, we aren't greek

I had to think about this a bit. I generally agree with Chris on this though I also believe in leaving room for what I don't understand (not that Chris doesn't).

Anyways, I sat down to read the scripture in question, after doing so I found myself asking "What about this is obscure?" After reading all of chapter 1 Cor 14 specifically, I think the obscurity and confusion comes from people's personalities that we read into it.

v1. Love is your guide to use of the gifts. Desire gifts but prophesying more than the others.

v2-4. Speaking in a tongue that is unknown (whether it's some angelic tongue if such exists doesn't matter because it's unknown) reveals mysteries so its good, but since love is our guiding light prophesy is better because it builds up, encourages, and gives comfort.
  We know of Acts where God gave people tongues so that everyone understood what was being preached, however. Whatever this issue is, Paul is saying there IS a gift of tongues and it IS one in which it is possible to speak WITHOUT the hearer's understanding. Whatever the purpose or use, there IS a gift that can be spoken from God's inspiration that we may be unable to understand.

v5. Prophesy is better than tongues UNLESS there is interpretation. 

v6-8. What profit is it to speak in tongues with revelation/inspiration, doctrine or preaching. In other words it does no good to make noise, there must be a message to deliver. And logically then what good does a message do if no one understands it? Like the musical instrument if you can't make out the tune/the notes than you can't sing along. If you're revealing a warning to people but no one understands than it's the same as the battle trump that no one understands is calling them to battle!

v9-11 Likewise (as in comparison) how shall anyone know what you speak unless you use WORDS that are easy to understand. So we know though it may be an unknown tongue, it has WORDS not gibbersh, not nonsensical sounds. This is an actual language of which IN THE WORLD there are many (there may be a tongue of angels, I don't see why they wouldn't have a tongue), but he says none of them is without signification. In other words, all languages have words and sounds and the sounds and words have meanings. So when we hear someone say one thing over and over in a 'tongue' and then translate it as meaning many different and mutually exclusive things, odds are it's not your hearing, they are just speaking gibberish. So if somneone speaks to people who don't know the meaning of the tongue (implying the meaning can be known) then they'll just be a foreigner. Don't bother with this guy he doesn't speak English. Which again goes back to it doesn't edify, it's not love. Why are you running your mouth to me if you know I can't understand you? The only reason I can think of is for show.

v12-14. As much as you want spiritual gifts, seek to be better at it for the building up of the assembly. Don't do it for you, do it for them.
  Notice, pray for interpretation. So he's saying it IS possible to pray in a tongue in your spirit that you YOURSELF do not understand. So it's good only for your spirit, but your UNDERSTANDING is unfruitful. This is good for your spirit, it does not increase your soul's understanding. The body and the soul, and the spirit all need excercise this is a way the excercises the spirit that The Spirit gives, but unless you seek for understand and the Spirit gives it to you, then it doesn't do your Soul much good. Notice we cannot give ourselves any of the gifts, and it's possible to get one without another, or even none of these particular three. But we can all study and teach and that edifies both ourselves and others. 

v15-17. Seek to pray and understand with the spirit, to sing and understand with the spirit. One is possible without the other.
  Now "how else shall he THAT OCCUPIETH THE ROOM OF THE UNLEARNED say amen at THY GIVING OF THANKS seeing he understandeth not." You cannot agree with someone you cannot understand, and in fact maybe you should be disagreeing with this one who you cannot understand. Notice the problem is in the room of the unlearned. Unlearned of what? The tongue that he doesn't understand. We cannot give ourselves either the GIFT of tongues or of interpretation, but we can LEARN a tongue. So what? This is again a real tongue, you could record it take it to the right dictionary and it would mean something. Again, maybe that would be an angel's tongue in which case I need webster's exhaustive angelic dictionary, but either way it is a real language that could really be learned. And since we know that that it is good to have agreement, there is no agreement to be had unless there is more than yourself present to understand and agree. In fact if even you cannot understand (soul) your words than even your soul cannot agree with your spirit in prayer.
  Again love is the guide. In the ROOM OF THE UNLEARNED you do well to give thanks in tongues, but you aren't edifying anyone but yourself. Love is not selfish.

v18-20. 5 words of understanding are better than 10,000 words in tongues without understanding. That means you need to say at least 2,000 WORDS in tongues to equal the english word "Hallelujah." 

v21-22 Tongues are prophesied as being a sign from God in the torah. But notice the sign is in the Word of God. The sign is in the Word of God coming back to them in another tongue. Every time I speak to a Jew in English about the Messiah I am making this prophecy true. But Israel must KNOW that it is God's word. Me speaking gibberish that CaNNOT be understood to anyone cannot be KNOWN to be the Word of God. Therefore this prophecy can ONLY be fulfilled in the languages of men. 
  And who is it a sign to? "This people" who apparently Isaiah 28 says that he will speak to a scornful people, apparently unbelievers says Paul. Tongues is a sign to unbelievers, not believers. It's a sign to unbelievers because the Word of God is coming to them from someone else's language that they know or it's coming in their language from someone who does not know their language. But to those who already believe, but do not understand the language it is not a sign or edification at all. The learned unbeliever can be built up because they understand and thus believe because of the sign, to unlearned believer it can't raise them because they can't understand it. 

v23-25 "If there be the WHOLE ASSEMBLY come TOGETHER IN ONE PLACE...and there come in those that are UNLEARNED OR UNBELIEVERS, will they not say you are mad?" If everyone speaks with tongues while you're TOGETHER then an unlearned person will say you're mad...why? Because they can't understand the language. And if you aren't speaking a language at all, then they are right you ARE MAD. If this believer was learned they would have no reason to say you're mad because they would say "oh the gospel is preached in bulgarian too, how wonderful!" If the unbeliever comes it will still be a sign to him so he might repent, but if we walks in even if he's learned and he sees everyone just running their mouths disorderly ("Everyone speaking in tongues") he'll again say you're mad even if he understands a few of the languages. Even a mad man may speak in english.
  But if it's prophesy, they can understand all of them so they are convicted by all of them because it makes his heart apparent and repent. Understanding is necessary for conviction. I can't feel conviction of what I do not understand. 
 
V26-30 "Why is it then", then what? Then seeing that you'll be seen as mad WHEN YOU'RE ALL TOGETHER and speaking things without interpretation...in other words seeing that disorder of the things of the spirit causes the appearance of madness, why do you all have a psalm, doctrine, tongue, reevelation, doctrine...this isn't spirit or tongue problem at all, it's an order problem. 
  No where does Paul have a problem with the origin of a true tongue (as opposed to frenzied gibberish) being from God whether it is understood or not, whether it is in order or not. His problem is with there being order and not confusion and apparent madness. So what does he say "Let all things be DONE unto edifying." In other words "follow after love."
  Then he lays out let everything to be done in courses, in order. A few people, one at a time should prophesy, give revelation, doctrine, interpretation. All things not just tongues need to be done with order. 
  And of tongues if there is no interpreter "in the assembly" let him keep silent. He even says that if one prophesies and another sitting by has a revelation, let the FIRST GUY stop talking and let the second speak. It's not that there's anything wrong with either, the problem is the confusion and disorder. One speaks the others keep silent and disern.
  
v31-33 Everyone can have a turn, but one by one. Well how can that be "if the Spirit comes upon me I have to speak, I can't be silent!" On the contrary "the spirits of the prophets ARE SUBJECT TO THE PROPHETS." Why? Because God is NOT the author of confusion.

v34-35 I'm not exactly sure what this means, whether women should speak in the assembly or not, because he does say let YOUR women keep silence, maybe that could be a discussion for later? I can't find the part of the Law that he is referring to. It could be that women can also be rendered wives. If it speaks of all women than how could an unmarried older woman learn seeing as she couldn't ask in assembly and has no husband to ask? On the other hand wives being silent would make more sense being not given license/permitted "being under obediance" to whom? Husbands which then clarifies the point "if THEY will learn...let them ask their husbands at home." Again that would be something of order, but it would seem then logically that a man in assembly could give his wife permission to speak something God has put on her heart...I think it would be good to discuss.
  But anyways given the topic, it does seem pointed that Paul would choose to address women in particular because it does seem in my experience women are more prone to do things "out of order" in regards to their spirits. I don't mean to be sexist, but it seems that men are more built towards order than women are. Or it might not have to do with build at all but purpose and authority. A wife may be more orderly than a man, but it isn't God's purpose for her to excercise that with authority.

v36-38. Are you the only one with insight? Acknowledge the apostles, or the other authorities...especially Paul =) Or if he wants to be stupid, let him be stupid. Doesn't Paul have a great way of dealing with clonepeople? Just let them be. Don't get worked up.

v39-40. Covet the gift of being able to speak God's words (but boy you'd better know you're hearing for God). But don't forbid people to speak in tongues you don't know. 
  And let all things be DONE decently (literally decoriously as in decorating. Walk with a look of none madness, nobility rank, seemly), and in ORDER/arrangment/dignity.

I think that all flows pretty sensibly, and I'd say taken as a whole it is to big and clear and obvious to be called obscure. 
  I got a couple of very distinct things out of it.

1. There is a gift of tongues that are not known (as well as other gifts).

2. The understanding (soul) of that tongue may not even be known to the speaker but it is their spirit's expression to God, and it is the expression of mysteries. It is legitimate even if done out of order and without understanding.

3. It is possible to be understood. It is not gibberish, it is not personal, it is an actual language that a person of learning could understand.

4. It is a sign to the unbeliever.

5. Prophesy is better UNLESS there is an interpretation.

6. In the ASSEMBLY or with others who are not learned of that tongue or given interpretation, it is of no profit and works towards no agreement. So without interpretation, it should not be spoken.

7. All gifts, SHOULD be excercised, but they should be in order/dignity/decorous, without the appearance of madness.


Having said that, Alisa brought up an interesting point. The scriptures above seem to make a distinction between in assembly and in private. The question seems to be in speaking towards the congregation, if then a person is going to a prayer meeting with others that they know...if the purpose is to pray to God and not necessarily to hear the prayers of others and the people are of this common understanding, then would it still be out of order for one to pray aloud in tongues? I told her, if I was there I would find it distracting even though they're not talking to me because I can't agree with what I can't understand, but maybe that's just me. I don't see it as impossible that others who (assuming they actually have the gift) would be able pray in tongues without distracting others who for some reason did not find it distracting. I'm not that person, but in that sense I would say it would not be out of order in that setting. Though I would still wonder why someone would speak aloud what no one present can agree to unless it was for show.

But in the end, even if done out of order Paul seems to say that it IS DONE. There are people legitimately speaking words that the audience cannot hear and that even they cannot hear, and are out of order, but they are still the words as a result of the gift of tongues.  

Real life application

So how do we apply this to our daily lives.  Obviously this should give us pause when we look at the scripture, but in the end it seems that we are kinda back where we started in that scripture must be interpreted by scripture.  We work from the bold and obvious and move to the obscure and hazy.

This sort of brings me to another topic that I find to more obscure and hazy.  Spiritual gifts.  Specifically speaking in tongues.  I am sure that you both know my feelings on the matter, but for the sake of the blog I will restate them.

Speaking in tongues as it has come to be know today seems to have no purpose at all. Speaking in gibberish doesn't seem to communicate, but rather on the contrary it seems only to cause confusion.  Speaking in tongues as I read it in the scripture was more of an act of speaking the gospel in your language and someone hearing it in their own.  This was a feet of God overcoming a language barrier in a culturally diverse group of people.  Again we find a few obscure verses that have led to this doctrine, that speaking in tongues is some sort of heavenly language.  In fact now that I think of it most false doctrines seem to be based on obscure verses.

But as don't necessarily know what those obscure verses mean, rather I only have my ideas and a gut feeling that those who are interpreting it in a way as to justify gibberish are simply looking for a spiritual high by working themselves up into a frenzied hypnotic state, I would like to here your thoughts on the matter and even better perhaps we can find a biblical interpretation of those verses.

ITES:

Can it ever really be an error though if God ordained it to be there? 

In the example of the child not ready for the truth, God could have been silent on any subject. As Paul says all scripture is God breathed, so God could have inspired his servants to shut their mouths. Doesn't the mere mention of it then suggest not only that God wants us to think about it (even if we aren't ready to understand), but also that he has made it possible even now to know that truth?

I think that the concealed-truths (since there are no errors) must in fact be somekind of backdoor to that truth that is not obvious. In fact I might add that, couldn't it even be possible that the servant writing incorrectly might have known the error? I'm not convinced in the idea of progressive revelation, but I do believe in progressive observation. For example, can we honestly say that we understand God better than say Moses? Noah? Daniel? In fact the fact that people like them believed God who hadn't half the history and raw data that we do, must suggest that the less the had (or at least less that God inspired into writing) they must have understood to a far greater degree than most of those who read it today. So isn't it believable then that what we carelessly might label an error is in fact the writer from God trying to convey something that upfront we can't understand? Like when someone says something absurd to make a point about something true. The absurd thing he says is not the point or the truth, but it makes the true point by the process it triggers.

And no doubt a lot is also missed, creating false positives, as we stumble through translations in english. I know I almost missed something in Job a couple months back because the english reads something opposite of the Hebrew. Since then I've made it a goal to learn Hebrew in the next year. This was actually a consideration when I first started looking into the differences between the Scripture and the Word of God.

Along the way I learned an interesting little trivia. In the actual Torah, there are only nine letters of difference between any kosher scroll. That is because the yemenite israelis were seperated from the rest of the jewish authority for a time, they contain all the nine differences. All other scrolls, regardless of age are the same, letter for letter. Of those nine letters of difference, none of them change the meaning of the words their in. The difference is equatable to color/colour, honor/honour. Both mean and are pronouced the same, but the spelling is different.

The rest of the Tanakh has some, I couldn't find a number of the actual variations. There's at least four main texts...of course it wasn't one book like the Torah so the comparison is hard to make, but there are variations that change the meanings. Nothing significant, the message stays the same even if you were to omit all the variations. The New Testament has thousands of variant texts. Just some trivia, I'm not sure what it means other than that most of our time should be in the Tanakh and especially the Torah.

Short and Sweet

The previous posts dealing with Truth, errors in Scripture, and God's revealment of truths gradually as you are able to understand them brought up a thought to me.

When we look at the Bible, we are generally reading a translation from the original Greek or Hebrew. As such we miss nuances and hidden meanings that we would otherwise see. Does this mean that someone who reads an english translation, will miss things that can not be found out except in the original version or will God give the same revelation to people who honestly seek and look for it?

I am not really sure what the answer is. I know that God can reveal anything to anyone so a person honestly seeking and delving into the scriptures will see fruit from that pursuit, but I do not think without looking at the original text, a person will come to understand the fullest meaning of the text he is trying to understand.

Thoughts, comments.

facts that could crush

This in continuation to the discussion that has happened thus far.  Although I don't quite understand a lot of the turns in logic that have occurred so far there is one aspect that has been on my mind up until this point.  This concerns what people do not want to here.  In church this mourning I was startled by a argument that resulted in one woman breaking out into tears because of having a believe challenged (no it wasn't me who made her cry).  The discussion started when we were talking about a Christian having to obey the Govt. placed over them.  One person said that God is sovereign and therefor he deliberately puts people in power.  Another lady sharply contrasted with saying that in fact God allows it to happen but doesn't put bad people in power on purpose.  The debate went back and forth until the woman with tears in her eyes said I can't believe that God would cause someone to rape or kill a child or something like that.

This brought to mind several things that God has done that would be unacceptable to this woman, like ordering the death of woman and children and animals in Amalek, or the first born in egypt(children).  It occurred to me at that point that there are some things about God that people do not want to accept and they interpret scriptures to fit that view.  After I swallowed my disgust and reminded myself that I am a hypocrite, I realized that there have been things in my Christian walk that I did not want to understand.  Like this woman who has to see God as somewhat passive when it comes to evil otherwise she automatically condemns him as being evil

Hell for example was an issue where earlier in my Christian life, had I accepted that there is a place of eternal suffering, would have pushed me toward loathing God because I didn't really understand it, it just seemed cruel to me.  I think God makes room or even deliberately allows for misunderstanding because as you stated there are things that we are not ready for yet.  A child could think that a doctor puts children in woman's wombs and then pulls them out of the belly button, and a parent would most likely let them believe that until they are older because the concept of sex and what it entails would quit honestly frighten a child and they are not ready for it yet.

So does this mean there are errors in the scriptures?  I believe that there are(whoa, woman are crying)  The evidence I have seen would certainly suggest it, but I am only human.  In light of this though I can see a reason why it would be left there.  This doesn't frighten me nor do I find it controversial though because God also provides clear cut verses or means to discover the error when you are spiritually ready to hear it and when it will not turn you away from him.  The fact that you can see how Job's friends were in error or that Jesus corrected what David said is testimony to that.  That being said I am probably still going to throw rocks at you just for fun.

Is there error in the Scriptures? 4

[Published on behalf of Jack Proffitt, his blog is "From a Layman's Perspective."]

I believe that the seond half of your letter, regarding your understanding of "the collision" that takes place, was well thought out. It appears as though you understood the concept.

 
The first paragraph is where I want to concentrate my thought. Don't worry, I have to be brief, because I am playing Mr. Mom. I wanted to respond quickly because some thoughts were fresh in my head.
 
Three issues were brought up. The first was concerning false prophets, the second "dead" saints, and the third was David "praying about such things."
 
The litmus test for a prophet is not "only" whether what he says comes to pass or not. A false prophet can duplicate this "sign." It was what he did following the "sign" that determined his legitimacy. There were and are many prophecies that have not yet come to pass. Understanding and applying the logic you used could lead to the stoning, and the be the result of a "sign" yet to happen. The bigger issue at hand is whether or not they give gory to God. In the case of a false prophet, the danger is that he recommends seeking and following other "gods."
 
Regarding the "dead" saints. I believe you understood. My only concern is that those "dead" saints were alive. We will forever be learning in the presence of God.  
 
Concerning Daivd, I must be a bit more detailed only because the subject is "healing." One of your favorites! Read the entire Psalm 6 again just for exercise purposes.
 
My Grandfather (or some imaginary person I have placed in that role) used to say, "If it ain't broke, why are you trying to fix it?" I only bring this up because whatever was going on in in this Psalm specific, we know that David was broke. He was in need of "healing!"
 
Rebuke and discipline are the issue of discussion, while David and his illness is the subject. Of what and why he is in need of healing is the question. Three reasons could possbily exist. (1) It cold be because of something he has done. (2) It could be because of something that has been done to him. (3) It could be just because (feelings can often override logic).
 
(1) If you are broken, you need fixed. Hence discipline and rebuke are required. You must be taught, therefore able to think and implement as evidence of having understood. Mercy and forgiveness must be recieved before you'll ever learn a "thing." The result of mercy and forgiveness having been granted is deliverance from what may have set you back. Thus, I believe verse 5 is a statement to God declaring, "I want to show the world that I have learned from the Father who loves me!" And so it is he reminds God of "his foes." And . . . 
 
(2) prevents his enemy from taking advantage of him. You better look out, because when I get off this bed there is gonna' be some woop, Whoa! I almost got carried away.
 
(3) Proven true by my own words. Reference #2.
 
Other than that, I believe the thought process you used in the discussion was excellent. In closing as I have said, do not hesitate to forward any questions or comments you have. It is always good!

Is there error in the Scriptures? 3

We say that we just don't know how it works...but what about this. A false prophet was to be stoned if his prediction from God did not come true, what would happen if a prophet could simply say afterwards "You just don't understand how it did come true." What is the meaning of truth, if it always can be true but as human being I cannot know it to be true? Isn't the the point of a prediction and an account? To verify that the account was true? 

  I'm in part playing devil's advocate, but it seems to me that God who commands us to test every prophet, spirit, and thought must have a way for us to know something is true.

  Or are we to take it on the perponderance of all the other truth?  

Rev 6:9-11 talks of those slain for their testimony standing before the throne. It could be argued as you said that they have no power to change themselves or the people below as they ask their questions of God, but isn't seeing how God reacts to a question a learning experience and hence wouldn't these 'dead' saints (doesn't Yeshua say that God is God of the living when referring to long dead Abraham?) be changing?

Or is the emphasis to be on grave and death? The dictionary says a place of ruin or hades, hades is also the place that the richman went to while Lazarus went to a seperate place, Abraham's bosom. I could see that there is no rememberance or praise in hades. I heard it once said that hell is not the place God sends people as a punishment, he is infact in their rejection giving them exactly what the ask for a place without God and since all good comes from God nothing good remains there. And 6:5 says no rememberance of God which would certainly make sense in a place devoid of the goodness of God. And if a person is in hades, then perhaps unlike in purgatory where God is removing the dross necessary to purify the soul, the person in hell is a person unwilling to be purified and hence even in torment their soul has no place for repentance. The richman even in his suffering bewails his circumstance and wants to go back and warn his brothers, but as far as I can see there is regret but not repentance.  
  But then the question is, why is David praying about such a thing? Is he worried about losing his salvation rather than his life?
  

"Yet, absolute truth is actually a collision where two opposites meet in the middle. I’ll let you think about that for a while." I understand, or at least think I understand this in general, but I'm having trouble applying it...in fact I'd say the actual question is hard to define in my mind. The accuracy of scripture is not really in question, in that I accept that what I'm reading is true to what was written...though I do have questions of reconciling textual variants...and I don't question that the actual word of God is both accurate and true...the question I guess is determining which things expressed are God's expressions through man and which are man's expressions independent of God...certainly of Job's friends we know that some of their words are true and some of their words are false...or perhaps they are in fact all true, depends whether God's problem with them is to be understood that they didn't speak what was right as in they spoke wrong, or did they just fail to speak what was right? So I'm not even sure if the question is one of error at all. Yet Paul says that all scripture is profitable and God-breathed...so I guess there is more than one question...hold on my mind is expanding...

We know that not all thoughts in scripture are God's...but we know their being recorded is the inspiration of God...how are we to know his thoughts (aside from his "Thus saiths") that are his truth since he does not always share with us which thoughts are his? Perhaps it is like the tree of the knowledge, the knowledge wasn't bad, but at least in my theory God just wanted us to learn it from him for a number of reasons...perhaps then knowing God's thoughts from man's in the scriptures is a matter of seeking him, as things of the spirit (which scripture 'in-spirited' by God would be) must be spiritually discerned. Perhaps one cannot know man's thoughts from God's thoughts without the Spirit? 

But what would be the point of having man's thoughts in a book that could only be understood by those with eyes to see the spiritual? Perhaps a means of teaching us about him, both directly (truth) and indirectly (exposed error)...then the apparent error of God's servant's thoughts and prayers would be allowed for in that God through his Spirit would teach them as such as we commune with him.

But Yeshua repeated over and over that we know the truth and are set free by the truth by abiding in his word? And all through we are told to study his word. In fact even believing is by hearing and hearing by the Word of God. So then what? So we have to hear the Word to believe, then we have to stay in Yeshua's Words (which are also God's words) to know the truth and the truth will set you free. So it perhaps we start in God's actual words, after all the heart and simplicity of the Gospel is in God's Words (thus saiths) alone, in the Torah and his words through the prophets...then as we expand from his words into the rest of the scriptures we are still abiding in his word and thus know the truth and certainly are seeing spiritually and thus he discerns for us which thoughts presented in scripture are his and which are the errors of his servants, but he presents them for our admonition just as we see the wrong actions of his servants and learn the righteousness by them.

Is that perhaps the absolute truth of the scripture between the collisions of two other truths? That there is absolutely knowable truth (God's Words) and there is possible error purposefully left there, but it all leads to absolute truth when we know the truth?  

You're point about a lie or the misnomer of a lie, is that deception is required...in otherwords a person can tell something untrue without attempting to deceive (like the woman in the scenario) because there is a point (a true point) that is being aimed at...and perhaps whether or not that point is ever revealed to us does not change the fact that there is a point whether we can figure it out or not. 

But what good does it do to say that there is no 'lie' because we know God has a true purpose for the 'falsehood' he may allegedly be telling possibly through a servant not speaking in his name? It occurs to me that this is very similar to a discussion about God sending a lying spirit to Saul...my first instinct would be to say that we don't know what good it does since God has not revealed the purpose for which he concealed. Yet if he left such a falsehood there, it must be the purpose of revealing that there is some point yet to be revealed. If he simply wanted us not to know he could simply say nothing, the fact that he allows something to be said about a subject must mean that he wants us to know something is there even if we are not to know what it is yet. I can accept all of that actually. I have no problem with that.

But it all hinges on the possibility that there is this 'falsehood' somewhere which later has a point that makes it in fact true. So what do we do here now with this possibility? How do we know which parts (aside from his words) are the transparent truth and which are the concealed truth? 

I think I've already answered myself. We must start with the truth that is knowable (the words of God) and in abiding in them the truth will set us free through the Spirit which gives us discernment over the spiritually discerned, in-spirited scriptures. All the scriptures then become true, all contradictions become not contradictions or errors, but rather concealed/hinted of truth...

This strikes me as somewhat of a parrallel with God's use of both good and evil. It is written =) that all things work to the good of those who love God and are called according to his purposes, yet we know from Isaiah that God creates both good and evil (not wickedness, but calamity, destruction) and from Job that sometimes God afflicts people with evil for no sin...therefore God uses good and evil to achieve abundant good (though never unrighteousness to achieve righteousness)...and in a similar way, perhaps God uses both truth and...an apparent untruth, to propogate more truth or rather a better unstanding of truth. After all the parables were fiction, something that did not happen, they are untruth, but he used them to give more true-truth to his disciples to whom it had been given. 

Is there error in the Scriptures? 2

[Posted on Behalf of Jack Proffitt, his blog is "From a Layman's perspective."  

My P.S. is actually my beginning. The reason is because as I was reading I was also commenting. Some of the comments are actually answered and updated further along in your study. So if you feel you have answered some of the issues I have raised already, it probably is because you have. 

I could write a book on your opening paragraph regarding “absolute truth,” etc. Interestingly enough, I have just written a little blurb last night. I have not finalized it for rough draft, but it should appear sometime next year in the blog. But I’ll give you a little taste of it now.. 

At issue are commands versus principles. The church is “big” into principles. A command is typically very easy to understand. “Don’t eat from that tree!” However, a principle can be and quite often is subject to personal interpretation. “Don’t eat from that tree therefore I should avoid eating from trees.” Judaism is born. The church while avoiding the former has accepted the latter. Which one of these is more dangerous? The answer is obvious. There is little difference between the cultures of today (as it related to God’s children) and yesterday (the culture of the Messiah’s day).  

 There is a little saying that I have around the house (that nobody understands) regarding this issue. I am a conservative in what I know to be true, but a liberal and lenient in what I don’t. Principles are not a bad thing, unless they become commands. The only way this would be possible is for you to make it so. You have added to the word of God. Danger! Danger! Danger! Has anybody seen Will? That’s enough for now on that subject. 

  Regarding the issue of questions and there importance, I couldn’t be in more agreement with you. I was just talking to Marian about this last night. I’m joking. I was actually talking to my mother about the subject. At issue is deduction versus induction. Philosophers for years have been persecuted for their inductive style and techniques. Most folks just deduce, “if the tree can’t be eaten, we should cut it down and burn it.” If you ask them why, they look at you like you’re an idiot. Understanding, another piece, I write about, soon to be released, can’t be gained unless some basic questions are asked and answered. Who? What? When? Where? Why? Therefore! Until these are answered, there is no understanding, except in part.  

  Onto the questions. 

  In your opening you mention the mind/heart. Two separate issues. The heart is deceitfully wicked. The mind is a mush pit. Literally a sponge prepared to absorb water. The mind is being renewed, not renewed. The heart on the other hand is replaced all together. You are given a new heart, not a new mind. This does not conflict with your final conclusion of action, “it only appears to contradict.” Thus what is necessary for you to comprehend? Understanding or Wisdom from above granted and received because you asked. “We really don’t understand how it works!” 

  Psalm 6:5 states: “For in death no remembrance of thee: in the grave who shall give thee thanks?” Another way of saying this would be, “The dead cannot think of You,” followed by the question, “Who can praise you from the grave?” The answer is no one. Repeated again in Psalm 115:17-18. There is a difference between a memory and the ability to think. A memory is of the past. To think is a transforming or renewing power made only available to the living. You will note that the “rich man” did not have the ability to change anything that happened to him or to his family. Does this help with your sight any? 

  I slip in comments from time to time, especially in person, so I am not sure that you may have caught one I said. There are exceptions to every rule. Or to put it another way, where you find a law, you also find someone trying to break it. While absolute truth exists, it would be difficult for you (or I) to claim to be the sole proprietor. Quite often we picture truth as a neat and tidy little room, where everything is put away properly. Yet, absolute truth is actually a collision where two opposites meet in the middle. I’ll let you think about that for a while. 

  The argument concerning the Word of God is understood. God didn’t tell Eve to eat from the tree, but He did tell man that the serpent did. Are you recognizing the collision about ready to take place? All Scripture is given for a purpose. In order for that purpose to be achieved, it must be arranged properly. You are walking a fine line, but I don’t have a problem with it. 

  So what is scripture then? I have no problem! But slow down before you start burning your Bible. How is David wrong? But I know, this still doesn’t answer to Job’s friends! Maybe a little perspective would be helpful. And so it is! For while you may be wrong in what you said, there is a little bit of truth contained therein. But what part is it? A trained mind will understand. I am inspired to dissect. Where are my cutting tools? 

  Speak and tell are the same thing my friend. What was missing is called deception. What is a lie? Most respond with, “It is the opposite of truth.” Not so fast speedy Gonzalez! There is “technically” no such thing as a lie, if you include some point, at some time, in some way. I hear you, “You’re not helping!” What is a lie? It is an addition or a subtraction from truth. Hence, the concept of adding or taking away from the word is strictly forbidden. 

  God purposely withholds and conceals things. BINGO! 

  It should be noted that “failure” and “prevention” can be seen on either side of the fence, depending on what side of the fence you are standing. The reason we don’t know the answer is because we ask the wrong question or with the wrong intent. Knowledge for the sake of knowledge does you little good. In fact, it can cause greater harm. He will not give you more than you are able to bear has more than one application. Parables are thus told for those prepared to hear. Give us ears to hear. 

  I’m not sure that ignorance is the result. I prefer the word confounded. You will be more perplexed than when you started. The conclusion is therefore accurate, “God will speak babble to you.” 

  He doesn’t only withhold from those “determined not to obey,” but those unable. Leniency, my friend, leniency, and thus “so that they will not reap more judgment upon themselves,” are completely accurate. 

  “Progressive revelation” is an excuse for those who don’t understand. There is nobody going to tell me, at least that I currently know, that they understand God better than Moses. The picture was not flawed. They needed to take off the bottle cap glasses! God’s Word can only be seen through the unfiltered eye. 

  Prophesy and knowledge are in part, but not because they have been given in part. Imagine that a person represents a part of truth, just one part. There are 47 parts to a particular truth. There are only 46 present. What is missing? The one person needed to make it complete.. Maybe we should try and find them. Maybe this is why we are to “go.” 

  So in closing let me echo the words of my friend, “And in faith, and in fellowship with God (and His blessed children) those imperfections are peeled back so that the man of God, who trusts in the Word of God, may be blessed.”

Is there error in the Scriptures? 1

[Note: To avoid confusion, I'm posting what I wrote and what Jack wrote as seperate posts.]

I've been wondering over the last few days. I'd say considering, but wondering is more appropriate. I have always been a staunch believer in absolute truth. There are immutable truths that can't be changed, are clearly understood, and no amount of differing, objective views can change. The LORD our God, the LORD is one, is such an immutable truth. He alone is God, there is none other...another absolute truth. I have built my understanding on stepping blocks of truth. I know such and such is true, therefore anything that contradicts it is false. Of course I find that each new step must be firmly established, and that the farther I get from the most foundational, the more I wander into probabilities instead of certainties. Nothing that follows is meant to contradict the most basic truth that there is absolute truth.

But the more I study God's Word...the more convinced I am that the most valuable of all study methods is in fact the question. I find that if someone trys to keep me from asking a question (usually by accusing me of heresy by way of their facial expressions), that there really must be some truth there that we are afraid of. We are imprisoned by our fear of the truth. Afraid of what it will ask of us, afraid of what we might know. 

I found myself wanting to commune with God the other day. I started thinking and praying about all the things I'd like God to tell me. Then it occured to me that maybe I'm not wise enough to know what I really need to know. So I prayed for God to just give me whatever he wanted me to have. I told him I wanted to hear what he wanted to tell me. To my sudden surprise, I found myself afraid. What if God did tell me what he wanted to tell me? I tried to think of all the things that I might have to give up. It was alright, I could trust God for money, nourishment, a place to stay. What about Alisa? What if God had something to tell me that would take me away from her? I found myself afraid to hear from God. 

Fortunately, I rebuked myself and now I'm perfect. =)

One of my questions recently, is an old one revived. God made man a physical being, he was man before he had spirit or lived. God gave him a spirit and he became alive (soul). So my mind/heart (scripture actually points to the heart as being the seat of recollection) while it may have been tainted by the fall was not a product of the fall. Yet as believers Unless we're trying to conjure the dead...then we are dead and in opposition to the old man we...

Eph 4:22 That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts; 
23 And be renewed in the spirit of your mind;

The spirit of our mind is renewed. So then why would God renew our minds unless he wanted us to use it? Well of course he wants us to use it, we say. So what do when our minds find something in scripture that appears to contradict another portion of scripture? We come up with the quick answer that 'it only appears to contradict, we really just don't understand how it works together.' And certainly that is often the case, and there is also the possibility that both are true.

But does that quick answer satisfy our renewed minds? It doesn't satisfy me that the same word tells me to test every spirit, to take captive every thought, the same word that commanded false prophets to be put to death, could be from the same God who would then tell me to blindly just accept that an apparently false word was in fact from him. Enough intangibles, give me an example! David asked God to save him because in death there is no rememberance of God (Psalm 6), but Yeshua said in the gospels that the rich man in hades had memories and in Revelation that the saints and angels in heaven both give praise and remember what has happened on Earth. Anyway you slice it David is wrong. The book of Job also is filled with statements of God, and in the end not one of them does God endorse as being true. You can say that the scripture is accurately recording people's words and feelings and so it is true...but what is the use in that then if anything recorded in it could be false, but merely recorded accurately? A tape recorder can accurately record, but unless it's recording God it's not the Word of God.

Questions are good, but how about some answers? I put to you firstly that we don't understand as a people what the Word of God is. The word of God, if you search scripture is two things and two things only. The Word of God is literally the Word of God. Not all scripture is the Word of God. The word of God comes from God directly, and it is usually marked by the phrase "The Word of the LORD came unto..." or "Thus said the LORD God unto..." The other, is Yeshua who is the WORD (not scriptures) made flesh. The "Word of the Lord is perfect..." "the Word of God is tried..." Having established that, the recorder is facing God. Scriptures are not the Word of God, but the Word of God is in the scriptures:

Mat 22:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. 
30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven. 
31 But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, 
32 I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. 

So what is scripture then? It is context and commentary. What about all the times the more recent scriptures say 'thus the scriptures were fulfilled.' What was fulfilled? A prophecy. Where did the prophecy come from, Isaiah (or insert prophet), what does a prophet do? Relays the word of God. The scriptures that are referred to as being fulfilled are things spoken by God that are being fulfilled, not possibly wrong but accurately recorded things. The Word that God spoke recorded in the scriptures was being fulfilled. 

So can we take the rest of scripture that is neither the words of Yeshua nor "Thus saith the Lord" and rip them from the bible as useless? How can that be Yeshua himself reasoned from the scripture! The Apostles always told us to test against the scriptures! And most importantly, what of Paul?

2Ti 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. 

Truly, if this is true, then scripture in general is affirmed...but how does he describe scripture? Able to make you wise...inspired by God, literally meaning God breathed which as we know when God breathes on something it becomes alive, or in fact in-spirited by God...helpful for instruction, conviction, correction...

But David is still wrong. And Job's uncommented-on-friends are still wrong. Can God inspire something that is wrong? Or is it possible that we don't really understand what is right and wrong? Consider the following:

Police respond to a report of shouting from a house:
Policeman: knocks on the door, woman answers looking haggard and wide eyed.
Woman: Yes officer?
Policeman: Ma'am we've had a report of some disturbance coming from your house and we were just checking to see if you were alright.
Woman: Yes, yes, I'm fine (her eyes wide and shifting). 
Policeman: Are you alone in the house tonight?
Woman: Oh yeah, I just had the TV up too loud and was watching a movie.
Policeman shifts about trying to eye beyond her: If there's something going on we can help.
Woman: No, I'm fine. (then silently mouths "back of the house").

Did the woman tell the truth (assume that she was in someway under duress)? No she didn't SPEAK the truth, but she did tell the truth. Consider the Garden of Eden:

Gen 3:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. 

It was the Devil speaking but if you read the account this part of what he said was true. They did become as God KNOWING...and it was God who called the tree of the KNOWLEDGE, so God didn't want them to know something...

2Ki 4:27 And when she came to the man of God to the hill, she caught him by the feet: but Gehazi came near to thrust her away. And the man of God said, Let her alone; for her soul is vexed within her: and the LORD hath HID it from me, and hath not told me. 

Pro 25:2 It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter. 

God purposely withholds and conceals things.

Luk 24:15 And it came to pass, that, while they communed together and reasoned, Jesus himself drew near, and went with them. 
16 But their eyes were holden that they should not know him. 

They didn't fail to recognize him, they were PREVENTED from recognizing him. We don't know why God does all these things. And I would argue that God doesn't want us to know why he doesn't want us to know yet...at least in general.

Mat 13:10 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? 
11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. 
12 For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.

Why does he speak in Parables? To prevent understanding, not to give it. He's speaking in parables because it is NOT GIVEN to those others to understand. He then says to those that hath more will be given and those that hath not even more will be taken. What will be taken?

13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. 
14 And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: 
15 For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them. 

Hearing, seeing, and understanding. What does Yeshua always say "Let him that HATH ears TO HEAR, let him HEAR..." If you're trying to hear, God will give you abundance. If you are listening, but not to HEAR then God will make you more ignorant. 
The word Hear is the same as in the Shema. The Shema is the greatest command in scripture, Yeshua said so. But God doesn't want you to just listen to the command, the implication of hearing is obediance. When you're Dad says "listen to me" he's not saying receieve my sound waves, he's saying pay attention and obey!
If you listen to obey, God will increase you hearing. If you listen without the intent to obey, God will speak babble to you.

16 But blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear. 
17 For verily I say unto you, That many prophets and righteous men have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them; and to hear those things which ye hear, and have not heard them. 

You might note that Mark 11 preceeds Mark 12 where it is annouced "And he began to speak unto them by parables."
What does this have to do with the truth of scripture? If we know that God's word is entirely always true (thus saith the Lord, not scripture necessarily), and that all scripture is inspired, then we also know that God intentionally conceals truth from alot of people. Why? Because they have not determined to obey. Why would he do that?

Luk 12:46 The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers. 
47 And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. 
48 But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more. 

Ignorance won't get us off the hook entirely, but it's better to be ignorant than to know and no to to. I put to you that God conceals from those who do not have a heart to obey, so that they will not reap more judgment upon themselves.
So...since fleshy, deeper truth is concealed for somewhat protection of those not listening to obey, perhaps some of it is concealed behind the frailties of his imperfect servants? What if in fact everytime God lets a servant speak of him, like Solomon or David, but isn't actually dictating God's Words, he in fact let him speak something in error, but one that if a person actually seeks God will not disrupt the truth? If we dispute this, then what do we make differing scriptural manuscripts or manuscripts with missing words?
Am I saying that apart from the Word of the LORD, scripture might have error? Perhaps we should ask, can it really be error if God left it there on purpose? Let's just say, God let his servants distract some from some messages, so that there could be glory for Kings to seek past it!
If you let yourself get past pre-disposed, churchanese thinking, I think the idea begins to sound more and more like truth. After all, isn't scripture filled with people telling lies? The first recorded words of a person other than God are in fact a lie are they not? All through scripture there are people telling lies and a lot of times the scripture doesn't label it as a lie, but if you read it you see they are. So we already know there is accurately recorded falsehood in the scriptures. We also know that there is tons of doctrine that seem to fall short of the fullness we see once Yeshua shows up. We call this 'progressive revelation' but doesn't that in fact mean that the people before hand did not have a full picture which means what they have is a flawed picture? 

1Co 13:9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. 
10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. 
11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. 
12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. 

Prophesy and knowledge are in part and when the fullness comes, the incomplete passes...or rather since the incomplete is absorbed into the fullness, the incompletness itself passes away. 
What does it boil down to then? Is that scripture contains the perfect Word of God, but it also contains the commentary of men who were yes imperfect and imperfectly understood (that much cannot be denied), but it is all profitable because DESPITE human failings, GOD not man, chose to leave those imperfections in, to protect people who were not ready to obey, yet still retains ALL of the truth that Man can handle in this life and more. 
And in faith, in fellowship with God those imperfections are peeled back so that the Man of God who trusts in the Word of God, may be blessed. 

I've written a lot, I wouldn't say too much because it was on my mind to write this, but I'm interested to hear thoughts, especially disagreements. 

One last thought, I didn't like the phrasing that God is protecting those unwilling to obey by keeping them ignorant. I'd like to clarify that I think he's being gracious to allow people time to learn to submit, because at least all of those who have begun salvation with God I believe will complete it (we won't get into a debate about whether someone can reject their salvation, cause I don't know the answer to that). And to complete salvation, a slow to obey soul is going to have to become one with the obedient spirit. So if it takes a few or many lashes to do it, those sometimes-believers who are slow to obey, will eventually become always-believers instant in obediance. 

Thoughts? Questions? Stones? 
Better yet does anyone have a hard question that they have been told they should be ashamed for asking? Or made to feel less spiritual for it?