***Which King Jimmy 1611 version? The one that contained the Cuetrocanicals in there proper place, the one that put them in the middle section between the testaments, or the one that completley removed it. ***
If book placement is important to you then you should go back to the HEBREW texts and see that many of the OT books are in a different placment compared to all Christian bibles.
And there are no Apocrypha “C”utrocanicals in the Hebrew texts that I know of.
As for the DR, there is no proof that the translators stole from it as they said they had not seen the complete work (DR) yet. They did compare their translation with the Hebrew, Caldee, Greek and Latin texts as they say on the opening page.
One word "Septuagint." You are of course trying to refer to the text/ canon that the Rabbinical school at Jamnia created with out any authority 40+ years AFTER the death of Christ. Jesus and the Apostles referred to the Septuagint almost almost exclusively. And there are no Apocrypha “C”utrocanicals in the Hebrew texts that I know of.
Yeah I am good speller but a lousy typist. See the above comment about he supposed Hebrew text. BTW you might also look into the Ethiopian Jews and find out which text they still use to this day. Unless you want to ignore the facts. As for the DR, there is no proof that the translators stole from it as they said they had not seen the complete work (DR) yet. They did compare their translation with the Hebrew, Caldee, Greek and Latin texts as they say on the opening page.
I suggest you do a little more research and don't bother with prot or Catholic sources, there are a host of Secular sources that will verify everything I am saying. They are a lot more unbiased than either we would choose.