[Textcritic]

I have to take issue with some major generalizations in one of Azure's posts:

Originally Posted by Azure

Hebrews 1:1-2, "God, who at various times and in variousways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds;"

Points out pretty clearly that in OT times, God spoke to his followers through prophets, and according to the Bible and OT literature, directly with the individual. During the NT, he spoke to the people through Jesus Christ.

According to the author of the Book of Hebrews, it may be the case that God "spoke to the fathers and by the prophets", and that this form of divine communication has somehow been transformed in "these last days" to be the exclusive property of His Son. There are a number of ambiguities with this single example from Scripture that need to be resolved before you can make such a statement:

First, who are the "prophets" and the "fathers" alluded to? It may seem to be a simple question to resolve, but determining the nature and extent of "prophecy" and the designation of whom was considered a "prophet" at and before the time of Jesus is not clear. Were prophets only those who were identified as such in the texts of the Hebrew Bible? If so, then there are massive sections of what we now consider to be "the Bible" that would not conform to this model. What about the so-called "extrabiblical" Jewish and Christian texts? Works such as the [I]Book of Jubilees[/B], I Enoch, I–II Maccabees, The Temple Scroll, The Hodayot, The Didache, The Shepherd of Hermes, The Gospel of Judas all make claims to some form of prophetic insight. Yet there are incredibly varying degrees of agreement about whether these texts exist on an equal plain of authority with the Jewish, Orthodox, Catholic, or Protestant canons of Scripture.

If your interpretation of the Hebrews passage is correct, then the only viable "word of God" according to the author are those words that were actually spoken by Jesus. Is it even possible to know what Jesus actually said, and to distinguish these divine sayings from what was redacted and expanded during the Apostolic period? Even if we were to accept only the words of Jesus as they are presented in the New Testament, this leaves no place for the writings of Paul and the other apostles who contributed greatly to the Christian Scriptures.

Originally Posted by Azure

Well Jesus Christ isn't alive these days, so the only way to hear what he had to say is to read the Bible.

Paul tells us in II Timothy 3:16, 17, “all scripture was given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, completely furnished unto all good works.” If we have in Scripture the instruction for all good works, what else can we possibly need?

Your rather definitive statement does not at all measure up with what Paul supposedly wrote to Timothy in the passage you cited. First of all, what were the limits—if any—that the author placed upon "all Scripture"? From my reading of the text—without any preconceived notion of what the limits of Scripture were for the author—the claim seems to me to be very inclusive. Knowing what I do about the state, nature and shape of Jewish and Christian "scripture" before the beginning of the second century, the statement is quite astonishing. In essence, the author is endorsing carte blanche virtually everything that has every been written in the name of God and classified as sacred! Hell, for all we know, Paul's "scriptures" included Homer's Odyssey, the works of Plato, and the instructions of the rabbinical School of Hillel.

Second, "inspiration by God" is a highly problematic term that depends upon centuries of developing theology and doctrine to arrive at the more general conviction that this was akin to divine dictation. The actual Greek word is theopneustos, which, literally translated, means "God-breathed". In a more hebraically inspired sense of the term, this is akin to the imagery provided in Gen 2 of God breathing into the clay mass he has shaped in creating a living human being. Biblically, humans are all technically "God-breathed" as well; does this mean that we are all "inspired" in the same sense as Scripture? More likely, Paul is suggesting that the scriptures are dynamic and actively applicable. Again, it is highly ambiguous, and provides no certainty whatsoever regarding whether or not scripture was originally even considered as source material for the life and teachings of Jesus.

Originally Posted by Azure

There are even people who will say that the Holy Spirit will speak to them. Yet they fail to realize that...

In Ephesians 6:17, Paul tells us to take “the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God...”

Again, going towards the belief that the Bible is the only way that God communicates with his followers.

How so? Where does Paul actually equate the "word of God" with Scripture? In actual fact, the only direct equivalent for this term is found in the Johannine description of Jesus as "the Word" (John 1). Even if Paul is alluding to Scripture here, is there any indication whatsoever that the "word of God" is exclusively contained within "the Bible"? If so, which one? Anyone with a modicum of understanding regarding the shape of sacred literature in Second Temple Judaism will concur that the scriptures were fairly fluid and prone to extensive recasting, rewriting, and a plethora of wildly inconsistent interpretations.

Originally Posted by Azure

Talking about those who believe God shows them signs or speaks to them in dreams and visions. First, there is no biblical support for believers having dreams and visions from God. God tell us in the Bible He speaks to us through His word. Second, dreams and visions generally has a detrimental and confusing effect in the person's life. Their vision sets a precedent and they remain unsound doctrinally in some areas.

And yet, both the Old and New Testament contain dozens of instances in which God communicated through visions and dreams. Furthermore, I have yet to see any indication whatsoever that "God tells us in the Bible he speaks to us through His word." I see allusions to the idea that the "word of God" is a viable source for divine instruction, and that "scripture" is valuable and informative. But where does one ever mean the other? Furthermore, where does God ever make an authorial claim regarding even a single "biblical" book? I have only ever once encountered a piece of writing that purports to have been issued in its entirety by God directly in the first-person, and the only "Bible" the Temple Scroll ever appeared in was possibly one belonging to an elitest Jewish sect of disenfranchised priests and scribes.

Originally Posted by Azure

According to the Bible, and what it says many miracles happened.

As to the interpretation of those miracles, I'm not sure.

I hate this.

Sounds like I'm preaching.

This begs the question: if something happened "according to the Bible", does this mean that it necessarily happened actually?