Taking issue with the premise of a thread and questioning content presented within it is not sniping. It is your mischaracterization of our attempts to engage with you on the topic that is counterproductive. If you do not wish to subject your perspective to potential disagreement, I would suggest keeping it to yourself instead. Comments that you might consider off-topic here are too interwoven with those clearly on-topic to support removal or thread split. If you do not wish to pursue the present exchange further, then don't.
I'll take your word for it then. TBH, I know you are Baha'i. I also know that the Baha'i take liberties to interpret the Bible to suit their "Progressive Revelation" doctrine. Its interpretation of the Bible is no different than the spirit of Sola Scriptura, so to your first post in this thread:
When the church put itself higher than the Bible?
Some years ago there was a popular saying: "What would Jesus do?" The Church/churches over time have exhibited all too human behavior that seems hard put to meet this test.
To answer your question directly (instead of defensively like I initially did), The Bible is (one of) the product(s) of The Church. The Church also produced Holy Tradition. "The Holy Bible" in its current iteration wasn't in existence until the fourth century. When "the scriptures" are referenced throughout the NT, they aren't talking about the NT (because that would be meta), but of the Septuagint (which was part of the Church canon until the Latin Vulgate which is why the Roman Catholics have fewer OT books than the Eastern Orthodox, iirc). The Reformers, however, further scalped the OT, so that's why a lot of what Christ quoted in the Gospels can't be found in the Reformed OT, but it is found in the Apostolic OT. That's not to say the Church is ever without fault.
The only other time we interacted was when you thought it was a scandal that the Bible was compiled by the Church:
Not a theory, and not gerrymandering. I suppose one might consider it an early example of censorship, or perhaps of cherry picking. History is written by the victor, even the history of people's relationship with God.
I played along with it to see how far you would go and further questioned you to which I was left with no answer:
What were who censoring, and from what was who cherry picking? To which war was a victor declared? These are very interesting perspectives. I wonder if all religions are like this, and if so how would these claims effect that of "Progressive Revelation?"
Instead of assuming the worst in people, you could just imagine the Church councils as a sort of "peer-review" process in which incorrect/unorthodox teachings (IE: heresies) were rooted out (with excommunication, and with the Holy Spirit). For example, Islam incorporates Nestorianism and Iconoclasm which are heresies. The Church teaches that while heresies do crop up from time to time, God allows them to be internally inconsistent so as to easily identify what is or isn't orthodoxy.
(No worries, I also assume the worst in people like I did with you. Forgive me for this. It's one of my many faults.)