Bibles come and bibles go ....

[Xeno.of.athens]

The KJV bible (66 books) is translated from the received text (You can google that)

The KJV for instance follows the Protestant pattern and do not include the Deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament.

The KJV that I have has 80 books. All 80 of them translated by the KJV translators back around 1610 AD and printed in the first edition of the KJV and all the editions until the 19th century (1800s).

 

[Valletta]

The KJV that I have has 80 books. All 80 of them translated by the KJV translators back around 1610 AD and printed in the first edition of the KJV and all the editions until the 19th century (1800s).

It also may be of interest for some to learn that the original KJV had a preface where it did credit previous translations of Biblical texts by Catholics (I don't think it mentions they were Catholics.) Also the KJV relied heavily on a text prepared by a Catholic priest named Erasmus, who had spent many years on a Latin version but hurried the Greek version on which much of the KJV is based. Erasmus did not have the best texts available to him, made many errors, and even "back translated" a portion from the Latin text because he had no Greek for that portion.

 

[Philip_B]

It also may be of interest for some to learn that the original KJV had a preface where it did credit previous translations of Biblical texts by Catholics (I don't think it mentions they were Catholics.) Also the KJV relied heavily on a text prepared by a Catholic priest named Erasmus, who had spent many years on a Latin version but hurried the Greek version on which much of the KJV is based. Erasmus did not have the best texts available to him, made many errors, and even "back translated" a portion from the Latin text because he had no Greek for that portion.

At that stage, the presumption of Catholicity was implied. You might not fully appreciate the nuanced way the Church of England came to be, however, the result was somewhat different from the continental reformation. Erasmus was great friends with Thomas More, and Henry VIII certainly had exposure to and interest in his work. That Erasmus was a Catholic to his bootstraps, however, he did see the need for change which he saw needed to come from within rather than from without. Whilst in time we came to see the failings in his work or translation, for the time it was both groundbreaking and pivotal. I think it was a significant source of the King's Bible, in the time of Henry VIII.

 

[Philip_B]

The KJV bible (66 books) is translated from the received text (You can google that)

Translation committees​

• First Westminster Company, translated Genesis to 2 Kings: Lancelot Andrewes, John Overall, Hadrian à Saravia, Richard Clarke, John Layfield, Robert Tighe, Francis Burleigh, Geoffrey King, Richard Thomson, William Bedwell;
• First Cambridge Company, translated 1 Chronicles to the Song of Solomon: Edward Lively, John Richardson, Lawrence Chaderton, Francis Dillingham, Roger Andrewes, Thomas Harrison, Robert Spaulding, Andrew Bing;
• First Oxford Company, translated Isaiah to Malachi: John Harding, John Rainolds (or Reynolds), Thomas Holland, Richard Kilby, Miles Smith, Richard Brett, Daniel Fairclough, William Thorne;
• Second Oxford Company, translated the Gospels, Acts of the Apostles, and the Book of Revelation: Thomas Ravis, George Abbot, Richard Eedes, Giles Tomson, Sir Henry Savile, John Peryn, Ralph Ravens, John Harmar, John Aglionby, Leonard Hutten;
• Second Westminster Company, translated the Epistles: William Barlow, John Spenser, Roger Fenton, Ralph Hutchinson, William Dakins, Michael Rabbet, Thomas Sanderson (who probably had already become Archdeacon of Rochester);
• Second Cambridge Company, translated the Apocrypha: John Duport, William Branthwaite, Jeremiah Radcliffe, Samuel Ward, Andrew Downes, John Bois, Robert Ward, Thomas Bilson, Richard Bancroft.

King James Version - Wikipedia

Given that we know who translated the material, (The Second Cambridge Translation Company) it is really substandard to dismiss it as if it did not exist. It does exist, and properly it is part of the text.

Apocrypha​

Unlike the rest of the Bible, the translators of the Apocrypha identified their source texts in their marginal notes. From these it can be determined that the books of the Apocrypha were translated from the Septuagint—primarily, from the Greek Old Testament column in the Antwerp Polyglot—but with extensive reference to the counterpart Latin Vulgate text, and to Junius's Latin translation. The translators record references to the Sixtine Septuagint of 1587, which is substantially a printing of the Old Testament text from the Codex Vaticanus Graecus 1209, and also to the 1518 Greek Septuagint edition of Aldus Manutius. They had, however, no Greek texts for 2 Esdras, or for the Prayer of Manasses, and Scrivener found that they here used an unidentified Latin manuscript.

King James Version - Wikipedia

Apocrypha​

Further information on the Apocrypha: Biblical canon
Translations of the books of the biblical Apocrypha were necessary for the King James version, as readings from these books were included in the daily Old Testament lectionary of the Book of Common Prayer. Protestant Bibles in the 16th century included the books of the Apocrypha—generally, following the Luther Bible, in a separate section between the Old and New Testaments to indicate they were not considered part of the Old Testament text—and there is evidence that these were widely read as popular literature, especially in Puritan circles; The Apocrypha of the King James Version has the same 14 books as had been found in the Apocrypha of the Bishops' Bible; however, following the practice of the Geneva Bible, the first two books of the Apocrypha were renamed 1 Esdras and 2 Esdras, as compared to the names in the Thirty-nine Articles, with the corresponding Old Testament books being renamed Ezra and Nehemiah. Starting in 1630, volumes of the Geneva Bible were occasionally bound with the pages of the Apocrypha section excluded. In 1644 the Long Parliament forbade the reading of the Apocrypha in churches and in 1666 the first editions of the King James Bible without the Apocrypha were bound.

The standardization of the text of the Authorized Version after 1769 together with the technological development of stereotype printing made it possible to produce Bibles in large print runs at very low unit prices. For commercial and charitable publishers, editions of the Authorized Version without the Apocrypha reduced the cost, while having increased market appeal to non-Anglican Protestant readers.

With the rise of the Bible societies, most editions have omitted the whole section of Apocryphal books. The British and Foreign Bible Society withdrew subsidies for Bible printing and dissemination in 1826, under the following resolution:

That the funds of the Society be applied to the printing and circulation of the Canonical Books of Scripture, to the exclusion of those Books and parts of Books usually termed Apocryphal;

The American Bible Society adopted a similar policy. Both societies eventually reversed these policies in light of 20th-century ecumenical efforts on translations, the ABS doing so in 1964 and the BFBS in 1966.

King James Version - Wikipedia

My view is that perhaps you might Google it as you suggested others do, or perhaps more simply, read the article from Wikipedia which I have quoted. As an Anglican for more than 70 years, I know that I would not use the Deuterocanonical texts to establish what must be believed, however, I happily receive them as scripture and am aware that they provide light and understanding, and indeed the writers of the New Testament most certainly used the LXX including these texts, as scripture.