Peter Abelard, the most influential of early dialectics offered a new approach to religious truth through logic in the twelfth century. I think that the most important point he makes in the selection is the idea of bible writers and interpreters not trying to fill in "holes" in the scripture themselves or finding compromises for apparent contradictions. He suggests leaving it "open" to question. It might like he mentioned, be in apparent parables like Jesus' often used or simply scribal errors.
             I agree with him that like the bible says, "Knock and it shall be opened to you", "Seek and you shall find" but don't necessarily agree with his preceding argument that doubting is 100% profitable buy yielding inquiry, then truth. He earlier suggested playing it safe and I think assuming the truth in any apparent contradiction and trying to justify it is safer, then we can conclude on typographic errors or whatever inference we make. Doubting first will not always yield inquiry but possibly premature conclusions or even abandonment. This wouldn't be a good start or strategy for to-be Christians who being "babies" in the spirit will have a hard time getting their arms around such before they can experience the potential truth.
             "Why should it seem surprising if we, lacking the guidance of the Holy Spirit through whom those things are written and spoken, the spirit impressing them on the writers, fail to understand them?" I don't think its is necessarily due to the different meanings that can be attached to the same word. Jesus' spoke in parables. Sometimes they have to read over again to be understood. Looking at the bigger picture yields a better view too instead of focusing on specific words which could be taken out of context. This doesn't completely eliminate the fact that words with several meanings are part of the question.
             ...