How can so many Protestants speak about "Sola Scriptura"?

Well, even if they included the deuterocanonical books, the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is absolutely fallacious. Jesus did not write a Bible; he built a Church. And there was a Church before the Bible. And the Church canonized the Bible. So, how can the Bible be the sole authority?  Really, how can any book? Even countries rely on their governments to interpret their constitutions.

1) How can so many Protestants speak about "Sola Scriptura"?

It's easy.

See...you can do it, too.

2) The believe that every word is literally true

False.

The doctrine "Sola Scriptura" is not the same as the doctrine you have just described.

Also: many Protestants belong to denominations that never adopted the Lutheran doctrine of "Sola Scriptura".

3) but they do so from a Bible which has had 6 books, a psalm. various chapters, and verse cut from it which had been part of the Bible for 1,200 years.

Ehhh...

some slight exaggeration there

and/or a few...slight errors

but the gist is correct.

More info:

http://www.bible-reviews.com/charts/history-wester...

Important point: many Protestants do NOT removed those books and chapters from their Bibles, and, indeed, read from them in regular church services. See: Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodists, etc.

4) How can you attack the Catholic Church based on your Bible when the true Bible has all the support for their teachings in the books which you have eliminated?

Translation:

How can you attack the Catholic Church based on your Bible when my Bible, not your Bible, is the true Bible because I said so?

Note (pointing out another problem with the question): I don't attack the Catholic Church.

5) The Catholic Bible has had 72 books for centuries before the King James.

Actually: the first edition King James included two books and one "chapter" not found in modern Roman Catholic Bibles.

I.e. most of the KJVs used by moderns - especially in the U.S. - are heavily abridged.

6) And is it rather peculiar that many of the Catholic teachings were found in those books.  It is almost as if they were chosen to be eliminated for that reason.  Hmmm

But many "Catholic" teachings are also found in the books that were retained, so that's not a very persuasive argument.

The problem here is one of misdefinition else misunderstanding!

The reality is that most Protestants do not believe in Sola Scriptura or at least not in the way Luther thought of it...    It's especially misunderstood by Catholics who think it means that the bible is the sole source of our understanding.Catholics who suffer from most confusion in this regard as they intertwine authorities.    Magisterum, Church tradition, apostolic succession, the bible and the Holy Spirit are all authorities but when it comes down to the final and ultimate authority, it's the church or rather the Magisterum.

Some naïve Catholics try to argue that these authorities are in harmony with each other but that suggestion is easily dismissed when we look at the doctrinal arguments through history.

Ironically, the Catholics don't like it but the term "sola ecclesia" represents their faith but then get pretty irate when it's misapplied to mean "solely the church".

I wouldn't be too quick to complain about texts removed from the Bible if I were you; the Roman Catholic Church has removed a number of texts that are still in Orthodox Bibles. 

But I agree that "sola Scriptura" has been misapplied. It was originally advanced by Martin Luther as a principle of argument, on the grounds that otherwise he would be stuck debating Church tradition with people who felt themselves free to redefine the traditions to suit their arguments. (Which, of course, is what they chose to do.) 

Actually, the parts omitted from most Protestant Bibles (though not all; I own two different Protestant translations that include them) were always carefully labeled as "deuterocanonical"--a "second canon." And we don't entirely ignore them; you can find references to them in Calvin's "Institutes of the Christian Religion," one of the first major written defenses of Protestant views. But because Protestants, unlike Catholics, wanted every believer to own and read the Bible, it was economically more efficient to reduce the volumes printed to the primary canon, and leave the others to separate volumes which could be examined as needed. 

It's also the case that NONE of the deuterocanonical material omitted from many of our Bibles was Christian writing. All of it was pre-Christian material, included in the Septuagint a couple centuries before Christ because it happened to be circulating among Jews in Alexandria at that time. 

You are right , they have less ground to stand on, but as you know, they like to speak, they like to hear themselves speak, whether they speak the truth or half truths or half lies, doesn't bother them so much, they just like to hear themselves , I think they got that from Luther

The cutting was Luther's doing.  On his own authority and in violation of the  prohibition against tampering with Scripture, he removed that material. 

Luther's doctrine of Sola Scriptura makes no sense since there was *NO Bible* till the 4th century.

How did he think Christianity survived without a Bible as the source of Sola Scriptura??

The answer is that Christianity survived on scattered pieces of Scripture and Holy Tradition.

Another reason Sola Scripture is faulty is that it says *in" the Bible that not everything is contained in it. 

Yes, each denomination insists they are teaching truth because they got their teaching from "the Bible alone". Yet there are over 6,000 Protestant denominations, the teaching of each one contradicting the teaching of the others. Truth cannot contradict truth, so obviously there is a great deal of untruth being taught. And that doesn't even include the 20,000+ so-called "non-denominational" Protestant churches. Total doctrinal chaos after just a few hundred years. Meanwhile, the one Church Jesus founded, to which He promised the fullness of God's truth, remains one in belief, one in teaching, one in worship, one in biblical understanding throughout the world after 2,000 years. You just can't beat God's plan.

Catholics teach that the traditions of the RCC are also needed besides the Bible, no matter how you actually define "Bible".  It appears you're offering a red herring.

That have the same bible the same words nothing is different the Bible is the Bible they accept Jesus Christ as we protestants accept Jesus Christ so don’t worry it is all the same bible