I was intrigued by the originals thread and I was tempted to bring it up there, but I think this is actually another topic: Do you think that, by way of "edits" or even faithfulness to direct inspiration that God deliberately inspired some scripture to be obtuse? Is it no accident that we quarrel over topics like election/free-will and both sides believe they have scriptural support? I'm hoping others will chime in, but my answer would be "yes". I suspect someone will quote 1 Corinthians 14:33, For God is not the author of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints.. However, "the author of" is interpreted into the text. It really says God is not a God of confusion but a God of peace. The rest of the verse may mean "as should be reflected in all the churches of the saints" (oops, where does that fit with all the disputes about election or the rapture, etc?). In contrast, we have the parables, which deliberately masked the message to a portion of the audience. And we have the example where Jesus deliberately offended some of His audience about eating His flesh and drinking His blood. I think it's obvious He meant to offend some people by making it sound literal. But does that extend to disputable matters of today (and I guess all of church history)? In other words, are many of our disputes grounded in the fact that, for whatever reason we may not understand, God intended these topics of debate to be obtuse, and directed the inspiration of scripture accordingly?