KJV had the Vulgate as a starting point for much of it. The Vulgate was in Latin. It was translated from the Greek and Jesus's language--Aramaic--into Latin. Lots of translations went into the KJV. Anybody who has studied another language comes to learn how much "art" goes into translating. It's definitely not an exact science. English as we have it now demonstrates the wide changes a language goes through over a relatively short amount of time.
The Council of Nicea did a lot more than just meddle with the words too.
We know the Council of Nicea changed parts, excised parts
This is not true. The council of nicea only made changes to the catholic Bible, which is composed from Alexandrian texts. KJV is Syrian texts.
KJV had the Vulgate as a starting point for much of it. The Vulgate was in Latin. It was translated from the Greek and Jesus's language--Aramaic--into Latin. Lots of translations went into the KJV. Anybody who has studied another language comes to learn how much "art" goes into translating. It's definitely not an exact science. English as we have it now demonstrates the wide changes a language goes through over a relatively short amount of time.
The Council of Nicea did a lot more than just meddle with the words too.
The KJV has zero latin vulgate in it. The main reference used was the Textus Receptus.
TR has patchwork Vulgate in it.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novum_Instrumentum_omne
But did any vulgate make it into the KJV? The KJ committee didn't just copy the words of the TR.