[papertyger]

And no analogy ever proved anything. And words mean things.

That is incorrect.

The puzzle analogy proves a single element may complete an construct without being the entirety of the construct.

The analogy hold so long as the parallels are valid.

You would be better served by looking for an invalidating discrepancy between the analogs than spouting pseudo-sagacious "principles."

[Chaguito]

Rats. I'm having trouble getting this thing to post. Sorry if it comes more than once.

Thanks for your gracious reply. The fallacy is that in the logical order of Paul's transition from scripture to the conclusion (completeness, thoroughly equippedness), he does not make scripture one of the pieces of the puzzle, rather the container of the pieces. I have stated this several times.