[zeek]

1st, the author of our faith is Jesus Christ, and we call it the word of God for a reason. So, since God spoke through man this criteria (of what the human author intended) creates too much of a restriction to be able to prove that the human author intended a certain meaning.

I was just quoting Tomes. If God is the author, then by Tomes' definition, there is only one valid meaning of the biblical text--that intended by God.

Instead, I would argue that we need to use Peter's criteria that no verse is of its own interpretation, and that any revelation from the word of God needs to be supported by other verses in the word of God.

Well then, if Paul allegorized in the Bible, it's OK by that criteria.

2nd, Igzy pointed out that the revelation is unfolding, even as Paul said, in ways that the OT saints had never seen.

Is that an argument against interpreting the Hebrew Bible according to the intentions of the "OT saints?" So then you disagree with Tomes?

3rd, the Holy word is complete. As Igzy said, no one is to add to or take away from this word. No one can justify their teaching as something entirely new to be added to the Bible or to trump the Bible. Even Jesus didn't come to annul but to fulfill.

Right. Did someone suggest that? I think it would be pointless to add to it since it has already been posited. Of course, there are disputes among Christians about what books should be included in the Bible that we have inherited along with it. So Christians don't necessarily agree on what addition or subtraction to it would entail.