With much interest I have learned that some of these missing links not in the Greek manuscripts were actually gotten from Latin texts prior to the KJV being printed...I am doing a bad job trying to convey this concisely, but to the point, I just read this last night and it did not really register until I read it last night how interesting/exciting it was to read this verse...
John 19:19-20
19 And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross. And the writing was, JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS.

20 This title then read many of the Jews: for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city: and it was written in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin.
KJV

Yes, it says that in the KJV "Latin"...Latin certainly was not that far away as would seem be implied! I am so awestruck thinking about all this.

[bibleprotector]

The KJB was made from the GATHERING of many sources, but primarily must be in the original languages as well, so that any reading from "Latin" is actually found also in Greek, even in just a relatively few witnesses.

The rendering in the original Greek of the superscription of the cross is actually based upon what was written by Pilate in three langauges, but written in the Bible in Greek. Moreover, each of the Gospel books vary slightly, but if you put the words together, you can find the "fullest sense" of what Pilate wrote.

Latin is an important witness to the Bible, but it is not the primary witness. Moreover, there are varieties in the Latin, because there is a Latin "traditional text family" which existed in the earlier days, as well as varying editions of the Vulgate. The Vulgate is just a "critical" form of the Latin. It is slightly corrupt though, due to various additions. It also faithfully preserves the correct rendering of 1 John 5:7, 8.

Is it true -- what I am assuming -- is it true???? --- that what we don't find in the Received Text but is in the KJ Bible IS from the Latin???

This is what made me smile when I realized that Latin was even on the cross of Jesus, and not formulated elsewhere--yes, I admit I am very ignorant about this, but when I read the defense of the KJV documentation recently, I felt very ignorant about the Latin history, and still do.
This brought it all the more closer, right there!

[bibleprotector]

that what we don't find in the Received Text but is in the KJ Bible IS from the Latin???

The "Received Text" gathers from many sources, including Latin. (There is no single "Received Text" in one edition somewhere, unless you {correctly} count the KJB as the final English form of it.) However, I would suggest that every single reading in the KJB NT finds a basis in a Greek MS copy somewhere. Looking at non-Greek witnesses would help decide when to follow which Greek, even a Greek rendering which might have seemingly weak or minority attestation. Thus, we have a Bible which takes into account the scope of Greek and the witness of the Latin, etc.