How does one resolve the following apparent discrepancies, or should one expect to do so?

First, according to `Abdu'l-Bahá:

But as the clergy have neither understood the meaning of the Gospels nor comprehended the symbols, therefore, it has been said that religion is in contradiction to science, and science in opposition to religion, as, for example, this subject of the ascension of Christ with an elemental body to the visible heaven is contrary to the science of mathematics. But when the truth of this subject becomes clear, and the symbol is explained, science in no way contradicts it; but, on the contrary, science and the intelligence affirm it.
-- Some Answered Questions, pp.104-105

Then, Shoghi Effendi said the following through his secretary:

To reject miracles on the ground that they imply a breach of the laws of nature is a very shallow, well-nigh a stupid argument, inasmuch as God Who is the Author of the universe can, in His Wisdom and Omnipotence, bring any change, no matter how temporary, in the operation of the laws which He Himself has created.
-- Multiple Authors, Lights of Guidance, p.490

The idea of resolving contradictions, through a narrative realism, implies the spurious existence of text-independent meanings. Although the harmonization of some discrepancies may come, a posteriori, through considering the meanings of specific texts in their respective contexts, I don't think that should be the objective a priori.

In the first case, `Abdu'l-Bahá is making an apology for a particular view of Bible. He argues that a literal Resurrection of Christ would contradict certain mathematical principles. Here, the Master appears to be using a largely antiquated Cartesian, mathematically deductive, view of science (which is common in certain forms of apologetics). In other words, as "science" is defined today, there is no such thing as a "science of mathematics."

Descartes advocated a science based on analytical geometry (rationalism over empiricism). From his standpoint, facts should, when necessary, be discarded in favor of mathematically coherent first principles. Thus, it would be mathematically illogical to posit that a dead (non-thinking) body could move around (exist).

In the second case, the Guardian is making an argument for divine omnipotence. If God wishes to violate the laws of nature which He created, the physical expressions of His Will, He can do so. It is not that God's Will is held captive to nature. Rather, nature is dependent on the operations of His Will.