It's not that that the KJV is not "valid". It's that it's not recommended over the Catholic version. The Catholic version contains the "deuterocanonical" book

It's not that that the KJV is not "valid". It's that it's not recommended over the Catholic version. The Catholic version contains the "deuterocanonical" books of the Old Testament. https://bustedhalo.com/ministry-resources/why-doesnt-the-catholic-church-recognize-the-king-james-version-of-the-bible https://bustedhalo.com/ministry-resources/why-doesnt-the-cat... PS. [mentioned in the article] Apparently the original KJV did include the deuterocanonical books, but they were not considered canon. The Puritans and non-English protestants were the first to omit them entirely.