Interpret it however you like. You are the one who I cannot pin down. Sola Scriptura is an advanced concept. It is built on primitives on which we should be able to agree. Whether the word of God is written or not, it is still the word of God. Genus. Mode of implementation, number of books, all secondary. All differentia, relative to the more basic premise. But if we cannot agree on that premise, I have no way to build on it. I cannot see why you will not simply say yes, the word of God, the utterance of God, if that helps you, is inherently supreme in making truth claims.
So no, don’t be disappointed. We have radically different views, and we cannot get past our unique perspectives. I for one have no intention of discussing canon until we know what exactly it is we are canonizing, or of enscripturation until we know what it is that is being enscripturated. It seems flat out silly to me to get that horse and cart turned around backwards like you have it.
As for why quit now, it’s always a problem. There’s no clean way to exit one of these conceptual impasses. The other side is most often going to claim victory, and yet, without actually crossing that divide, how is there a victory? So it becomes necessary to cut one’s losses. Time and effort lost on futile exchanges of words. Law of diminishing returns kicks in. At some point one person or the other has to let their impulse to have the last word give way to the rational understanding of an unresolved situation.
Peace,
SR
Hm. Well... let me give it one more college try (in the “Hope springs eternal” category), and let’s put it this way (if the qualifiers don’t get on your nerves):
If God says anything, then it will certainly take precedence over any non-God-sayings; any Divine Word will always take precedence over any non-Divine word.
As such: if [D] is a Divine Word, and [d] is a non-Divine Word, and if [D] and [d] are in conflict, then—to the extent that they are in conflict—we should accept [D] and reject [d]. To the extent that they are not in disagreement, the question of “precedence” is irrelevant to the case.
Does that help?