It does not such thing. It says that Bishop Timothy will be fully equipped for his work if he supplements his formation with the study of the scripture. But Paul says so only after he exhorted him to heed the lessons St. Paul and apparently others gave him orally (2 Tim 3:14).
He is only supplementing the OT with what he is now learning as what would become the NT. There is nothing in this verse that says he is being taught extra-Biblical teachings and traditions. That is only a presumption that you are making. Timothy did not have the NT at the time as we do now. Paul was telling him to hold on to the teachings that would become scripture, not other teachings. By "EXTRA", I was saying anything outside of what we call the Bible today. Extra-scriptural teaching does zero to make a man thoroughly equipped, only scripture makes him so.
By now you have constructed a veritable card castle on top of a scripture that simply says: learn form me; learn from the Old Testament; be fully equipped for episcopacy. First you transferred the meaning of "scripture" to the entire Canon; now you speculate that the references to tradition in the scripture are also scripture. And we still lack a prohibition to look for extra guidance that you need to condemn the Catohlic/Orthodox development of dogma.
What of the time between 1 century and Carthage (AD 409)? Where in the scripture is the notion that you silently advance, that the first four centuries of the development of the Christian Church are exceptional in that they go on tradition, and after the Canon is closed, a different Sola Scriptura Church emerges?
Where in 2 Timothy 3 is the notion that Timothy's lay students become fully equipped through the scripture alone?
Was the Deuterocanon implied in 2 Timothy 3?