(Last bread) >>2648150
The books of the New Testament were solidified before Constantine was born. This is known and provable. The Council of Nicea was convened to determine whether the Son of God was a created being or a God Himself. The vote was around 248 to 2 in favor of Jesus being God (or an integral aspect of God) vs. being created or a man who became a deity. The Council of Nicea had no part in determining the canonical texts. The Roman Catholic Church came many years after Constantine, which only matters in this context to show that it had no bearing on the selection of books.
The pseudepigraphical texts included in the RCC Bible are from the Second Temple period (pre-Jesus/post-Jewish canon) and were not included in the Protestant Bibles, for no simpler reason that they were not what the Early Church (pre-Constantine/RCC) used, nor what the Jews considered canonical (not God-breathed Scripture). It doesn't mean they are not valuable in the historical context. Even King James said they were worth studying, but did not carry the same weight as Scripture.
The different textual families of the New Testament (primarily Alexandrian (older) and Textus Receptus (Received Text -newer)), of which examples were limited at the time of the forming of the New Testament in the RCC and King James versions, formed the textual tradition we see from that era. Many, many more examples have been found in the intervening centuries, and have shaped our understanding of what the earliest texts really were. In all, no more than 10% of the NT text can be said to be "different" with a far smaller percentage changing any meaning of the text at all, most of it being the flexibility of the Greek language and the many ways (in the hundreds) to say the exact same thing.
There are verses that are missing from the KJV in later translations, but are derived from earlier texts. How is this explained? This is the ongoing work of trained scholars. The "best" or "most exact" version of the Bible has yet to be written.
The point is that the Interwebs are full of conspiratorial disinfo on the Early Church. It is best to find original sources (and those who spend their entire lives sourcing and studying them) and not secondary or tertiary sources where much ulterior motive exists.