Scripturalism has an unscriptural epistemology. Ironic. Take this definition:
A consistent Christian worldview avers that the epistemological starting point is that the Bible…has a monopoly on truth…Since all knowledge must come through propositions (which are either true or false), since the senses in interacting with creation yield no propositions, knowledge cannot be conveyed by sensation. - See more at: http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=276#sthash.yV59J0U1.dpuf
Let's compare this claim to…Scripture. One function of the celestial luminaries is to enable humans to keep track of time:
14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years (Gen 1:14).
If, however, you deny the general reliability of the senses, then how can the celestial luminaries perform their divinely-assigned function?
Likewise, you have the quarantine laws in the Mosaic code, where (to take one example) the priest is to perform periodic physical examinations on a patient with a skin condition, to see if it has cleared up.
13 The Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying, 2 “When a person has on the skin of his body a swelling or an eruption or a spot, and it turns into a case of leprous disease on the skin of his body, then he shall be brought to Aaron the priest or to one of his sons the priests, 3 and the priest shall examine the diseased area on the skin of his body. And if the hair in the diseased area has turned white and the disease appears to be deeper than the skin of his body, it is a case of leprous disease. When the priest has examined him, he shall pronounce him unclean. 4 But if the spot is white in the skin of his body and appears no deeper than the skin, and the hair in it has not turned white, the priest shall shut up the diseased person for seven days. 5 And the priest shall examine him on the seventh day, and if in his eyes the disease is checked and the disease has not spread in the skin, then the priest shall shut him up for another seven days. 6 And the priest shall examine him again on the seventh day, and if the diseased area has faded and the disease has not spread in the skin, then the priest shall pronounce him clean; it is only an eruption. And he shall wash his clothes and be clean. 7 But if the eruption spreads in the skin, after he has shown himself to the priest for his cleansing, he shall appear again before the priest. 8 And the priest shall look, and if the eruption has spread in the skin, then the priest shall pronounce him unclean; it is a leprous disease (Lev 13:1-8).
If, however, you deny the reliability of the senses, then a priest can't trust his eyesight.
Here's another example:
9 After listening to the king, they went on their way. And behold, the star that they had seen when it rose went before them until it came to rest over the place where the child was (Mt 2:9).
The star was a sensible object that was divinely tasked to guide the Magi to the home of the Holy Family.
Scripture isn't the epistemological starting-point for Scripturalism. No one who took passages like Gen 1:14, Lev 13, or Mt 2:9 as their epistemological point of departure would conclude that knowledge can't be conveyed by sensory perception. No one who began with passages like this would deny the general reliability of the senses.
Rather, Scripturalist epistemology originates in extrabiblical philosophical objections to sense knowledge.
You must wonder why Scripturalists think we have five different senses in the first place. Why are eyes different than ears, why did God endow us with both, if sense knowledge is impossible?
BTW, I don't think all knowledge derives from the senses. I don't subscribe to blank slate empiricism. Take Poincaré's withering critique of logicism. But my immediate point is the witness of Scripture to sense knowledge.