…when really getting into what different Bible verses say, have a couple of different translations from different strains of thought.
It would seem the selection of translations would be important also, somewhere along the line someone needs to be trusted to understand the languages and the context, and then, as Kosta points out, there are differences between original selections before one worries about the correct translation into English.
I can't see most, or many, Sola Scriptura adherents doing this - each for his or her self. It seems to me, obvious to me, that the system of transmitting the Gospel by this means is far from practical and even further from the commission from Jesus.
And the alternative? Word of mouth transmission? You realize one of the reason the filique (sp) was put into the Nicene creed was because in the West, there were no copies of the council canons. The Gallic bishops had no idea that they shouldn't just modify the creed to combat a local heresy.
Trusting in an infallible church is great in theory, but leads to some interesting results when one half no longer speaks the same language, or even can speak the language, of the other half. That, more than the filiquoe, was the reason for the schism between East and West. It got to the point that if a common clergyman from Rome and one from Constantinople, each believing in the infallible unchangeable tradition of the Church, met to discuss theology, they had a heck of a time doing it. Neither one could speak, or understand, the others language. Heck, you get that now.
Now, as for what a good Sola Scriptura Christian should do, it does get complicated. The basics are agreed on (who Jesus is, and such) but beyond that everyone, and the Orthodox and Catholics included, pick and choose. Or perhaps a better way would be put more emphasis on certain areas. Such has been the case throughout history since the time of the Apostles. The amazing thing is not how much we differ, it is that we are as alike as we are.