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.