Certainly if this conclusion (proven false) is not the definition one is using for sola scriptura, then the point is moot. But this is not what I've seen from posters on here.
NO ONE said that the Bible is "all that there is" nor that it "contains all truth" or that "nothing is needed but the Bible".
Though it's only somewhat based on my point, I still would not make even that statement on here and be certain no one agrees with some or part of it. Let's see.
How about it, Sola Scriptura proponets? Would you agree or disagree with all or part of these statements:
The Bible is all that there is; The Bible contains all truth; Nothing is needed but the Bible.Clearer still:
Would you agree or disagree that:
1) Scripture alone, by itself, with nothing else, is entirely sufficient for doctrine, reproof, correction and instruction in righteousness.Who here agrees/disagrees with 1? 2? 3?
and,
2) This is what sola scriptura means.
and,
3)This is proven true by 2 Timothy 3:16-17.
How about rather we do it this way. We start with the 66 books that no one has ever been able to prove contain errors. Then, if any other books considered have proven to have any error whatsoever we determine those to be not divinely inspired and discard them as from the deceiver.