I have to say, I read some claims that, IMHO, are quite, er, "overenthusiastic" in support of their favorite doctrine - on both sides of the issue.
1st, here's a table of contents from the original (1611) King James Version (KJV)
As one answer correctly stated, and as you can see here, all the scriptures included in the Rheims-Douay Version are also included in the KJV *translation*. Many (not all) later *editions* of the KJV omit these scriptures. The RDV does *not* have a separate section titled "apocrypha", but rather includes these scriptures within the Old Testament. Additionally, the RDV uses Vulgate book titles, so you have 1-4 Kings instead of 1-2 Samuel and 1-2 Kings (which hardly makes sense, as Samuel does not appear in 2 Samuel). Also, RDV has 1 & 2 Esdras rather than Ezra & Nehemiah, so 3 & 4 Esdras in the RDV correspond to 1 & 2 Esdras in the KJV.
This should clear things up
especially if you refer to the KJV table of contents from the earlier link so you can see how the KJV separates the scriptures of the Apocrypha.
So, now that we have established that the KJV and the RDV *translations* contain the same scriptures, why do modern KJV *usually* omit these additional scriptures known as the Apocrypha? And why are they called Apocrypha anyway? And do all Protestants really reject them?
According to the HarperCollins Bible Dictionary, Martin Luther was the first to question the inclusion of these scriptures in the bible. He considered them uninspired, but still valuable, and he was the first to separate them into a section called "Apocrypha". However, he never omitted them from his bible. The first to do this in *any* language were the Puritans in England, who first produced editions of the Geneva bible without the Apocrypha in the 1590s. The practice caught on in other countries and languages, and has progressed to the point that many bible versions today are produced without any attempt to include these scriptures. Most KJV editions available today are based on the Oxford Revision of 1769, which omits these scriptures.
Among others, the Anglican Communion - one of the largest of the true Protestant sects in the world - still include these books in their bibles. Other non-Catholic sects also include them, most notably the entire set of Eastern Orthodox sects. This is definitely not a Catholic - Protestant issue, but rather a "many Protestants" verses "many other sects" issue.
In any case, it is important to understand that *all* bibles included *all* of these scriptures for over 1,000 years! Even if we accept the unilateral decision of Martin Luther as valid (that these scriptures are uninspired), that still leaves over 1,000 years of inclusion in all Christian bibles.
You can read more about these extra scriptures here
Essentially, I conclude that there is no good reason to exclude them from a bible. I have yet to hear a valid argument for their omission. In fact, I have yet to hear a valid argument for their lack of inspiration - but that is not something I am prepared to go into here.
If you are a die-hard KJV fan, I recommend only these 3 editions:
KJV (Paragraph) - http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html?ie=UTF8&location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2FKJV-Cambridge-Paragraph-Bible-Apocrypha%2Fdp%2F0521843863%3Fie%3DUTF8%26s%3Dbooks%26qid%3D1189044700%26sr%3D1-1&tag=wwwjimpettico-20&linkCode=ur2&camp=1789&creative=9325
A scholarly effort to duplicate the original KJV *translation* (as opposed to any particular printing). Spelling is modernized (not the wording) and the complete contents of the original translation is here, including the excellent marginal notes.
KJV (Oxford) - http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html?ie=UTF8&location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2FBible-Authorized-James-Version-Apocrypha%2Fdp%2F0192835254%3Fie%3DUTF8%26qid%3D1190233697%26sr%3D11-1&tag=wwwjimpettico-20&linkCode=ur2&camp=1789&creative=9325
Similar to the above, this edition lacks only the marginal notes and is much cheaper (and paperback). It is pretty well-put-together for a paperback.
KJV 1611 - http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html?ie=UTF8&location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2FHoly-Bible-King-James-Version%2Fdp%2F1565631609%3Fie%3DUTF8%26s%3Dbooks%26qid%3D1189044819%26sr%3D1-1&tag=wwwjimpettico-20&linkCode=ur2&camp=1789&creative=9325
This is a "replica" of the original 1611 printing. Each word on each page is in precisely the same position as in that original printing. It also includes the excellent marginal notes. The *spelling* in this edition is also identical to the original, and at 1st will cause readers some difficulty (but only at 1st). Once you have mastered the transposition of u and v, and of i and j, you will likely find it just as easy to read as an Oxford Revision KJV. Fortunately, this edition does not use the original Germanic lettering of the original, and instead uses the Roman lettering to which we are all accustomed. Possibly the best bible to use when discussing scripture with a KJV-only Christian, as this is about as close as you can get for under $100 to the *actual* *original* KJV. It is also quite reasonably priced.
I hope this helps.
HARPERCOLLINS BIBLE DICTIONARY. Copyright (c) 1985, 1996 by The Society of Biblical Literature. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America.
· 1 decade ago