One of the most common, and yet most illogical attacks against Sola Scriptura is that scripture cannot be sufficient because there are too many varying interpretations of scripture.
The first problem with this argument is that it actually attacks the wrong doctrine. This would actually be an attack on Perspicuity, i.e. the clarity of scripture, rather than on Sola Scriptura, which is about authority. Clarity and authority are two different things. If a single authority is interpreted many ways, it doesn't lose, forfeit, surrender, delegate, or otherwise pass on its authority. Its level of authority remains the same, it's just that someone has misunderstood it.
Those who reject Sola Scriptura actually have to acknowledge this, as no authority, or collection of authorities, be they real or imagined, is perfectly understood by all people at all times. The obvious example is the Catholic Church, the very organisation that made it necessary to give a name to the fact that the Bible, as the inspired word of God delivered to His people by His hand chosen messengers, is the final authority on all things Christian. Though the Catholic Church claims to also be infallible and authoritative, Catholics cannot even agree on how far that authority extends! Some Catholics are even so opposed to official Catholic doctrine, they may as well be called "Protestants".
So, evidently, clarity and authority are different things. You cannot refute the very obviously Biblical doctrine of Sola Scriptura by pointing out that, however much authority the Bible has, people don't always understand it. But here's the irony: The cause of nearly all major Biblical disputes is not the acceptance of Sola Scriptura, but the rejection of it!
With some denominations, there is pretty much universal agreement that they are heretical. We typically call these "cults". Mormonism, for example. Other than a few amateur Catholic meme makers who would benefit from deleting their social media accounts, pretty much everyone knows Mormons utterly reject Sola Scriptura. We consider them heretical not for being out of step with some other Church, but because their beliefs are just blatantly anti-Christian.
Other denominations, however, may agree on Sola Scriptura, and are not so wacky in their beliefs that they can be considered cultish. Now, the first thing to note is that 9 times out of 10, the differences between these denominations are so minimal as to be considered wholly insignificant. They may have different leadership structures in individual congregations, they may celebrate different holidays, they may even have different ways of doing particular rituals like Baptism or Communion, but often, it turns out to be "big names for little differences". To trot out a cliche, they agree on the basics. They may even, at least by word, affirm Sola Scriptura.
But any system run by man will inevitably be messed up by man, which unfortunately often means Sola Scriptura is occasionally set aside in order to sustain some very unBiblical beliefs and practices.
An example of this is baptism. On its own, baptism is an issue Christians can afford some level of division on. It gets dicey, given that salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, and not of works, as we are explicitly told in Ephesians 2:8-10, when baptism is said to be essential for salvation. However, when baptism is separated from salvation, Christians can afford to, for example, believe in infant baptism.
But like it or not, scripture clearly teaches that baptism is an affirmative action taken only by believers in response to salvation, as a show of good conscience towards God. Infants, of course, can neither comprehend, nor respond to, the Gospel, and thus baptism is of no effect to them. Infant baptism, therefore, is a man-made tradition. Arguments for it stem primarily from tradition, even in contrast to other traditions that did exist historically, and from eisegesis. You will never find infant baptism in scripture, no matter how hard you try, no matter how many Church "Fathers" you can cite, no matter how much your Church may insist it's there. If we go by scripture alone, infant baptism is just not a practice that can be sustained, but Churches which do sustain it are not sticking to scripture alone!
As it stands, infant baptism is a minor heresy. I don't even necessarily think it's offensive to God, though I would ask what His thoughts would be on meddling with so sacred a ritual. When we take it too far, it loses its meaning, and that is certainly not something God would be pleased with. But of course, as unBiblical things go, it's far above, say, Theistic Evolution.
Theistic Evolution is just one more "interpretation" of the Bible that is not actually an interpretation of the Bible. It is a belief adopted by some within the Church from an increasingly secular culture. Reading a mere 8 pages into scripture, it's easy to see that God is a Creationist. Moses was a Creationist. The Jews, from whom God selected prophets, were all Creationists. Jesus and the Apostles were all Creationists. We see, from Genesis to Revelation, just how clear the Bible is on the issue of Creation, to the extent where the entire Church was virtually unanimous on this topic right up until the 18th century. To really drive this point home, I could have easily left that last point out, even cut it out of my case entirely, and Creationism would still be the obviously correct interpretation of scripture.
Compare that with how Theistic Evolutionists and their ilk argue. Rather than argue their case from what scripture clearly says, they spend an absurd amount of time claiming it doesn't mean what it clearly says. They then spend the rest of their time comparing the Bible to ancient pagan myths, giving a very atheistic case for Evolution, arguing that Creationism makes the Christian faith look stupid, and just generally acting like atheists. Perhaps the silliest argument they make is taking Augustine, a very firm and clear Creationist, and making him out to be one of their strongest supporters.
Far worse than Theistic Evolution is Conditional Security, a belief so borderline apostate, its sole redeeming quality is that those who hold to it may nevertheless deny it by practice. Conditional Security is as close as you can get to a works-based Gospel without flat out saying you must work to obtain salvation. But what is the primary argument for Conditional Security? There are a few misquoted Bible verses here and there, but the primary argument is appeal to consequence. If you're always saved no matter your sin, then you can sin and still be saved. This, they argue, is unjust, and so obviously you can lose your salvation.
In reality, scripture is quite clear that you cannot lose your salvation. Scriptures supporting Eternal Security vastly outnumber scriptures apparently supporting Conditional Security, and the latter always have a context that does not require, and often even flat out precludes Conditional Security. Furthermore, Eternal Security is just a logical extension of the Gospel itself. If salvation is by grace through faith, then the only logical way to lose salvation is to lose faith. The debate then shifts to whether God, in His omniscience and omnipotence, would allow a true believer to apostatise, or give salvation to a future apostate. Again, scripture answers all of this, and those on the side of Conditional Security must practice eisegesis.
These three examples show that rather than division being the fault of either Sola Scriptura, or even Perspicuity, they are actually a result of rejecting both. Although it cannot be said every division is because of eisegesis, or that there is nothing in scripture that is hard to understand, scripture is generally quite clear, and its clarity increases with the importance of the issue being discussed. But when you give a Holy book to less-than-Holy people, it is inevitable that sin will creep in, and Eden will repeat itself. We see a lot of "did God really say?", "you will not surely die", and even "you will be as God".
One thing often overlooked in this account is that Satan is not even the only one who twisted God's word in this event. Eve, herself, innocently added "you shall not touch it" (the fruit) to the command, which never said anything about touching the fruit. This, perhaps, gave Satan some ammunition with which to deceive the wife of Adam. Can opponents of Sola Scriptura claim God was not clear enough in His command? Will they say God was any less authoritative in the garden, given that Adam, Eve, and Satan, all had different interpretations of God's command?
And so we see, the multitude of interpretations is due only to the multitude of sinners! We all have our shortcomings, be it a lack of faith, wisdom, or even morals. And yet, not one of those shortcomings can be attributed to God, nor His word. In the end, the Bible is clearer even than my own words in this article, and its Author, the Lord, is of infinitely more authority. By logical extension, no authority can be equal to, or higher than scripture, simply because no authority is equal to, or higher than God. Therefore, even if every single person on Earth had a completely different interpretation of every single verse in scripture, Sola Scriptura would be an absolute fact.