Unlike modern-day translators, the King James translators used the more numerous Byzantine manuscripts as the basis for their translation. Undoubtedly, this was largely due to the fact that the oldest and best of the Alexandrian manuscripts, as well as the Dead Sea Scrolls, were unknown to the King James translators. Having far fewer Alexandrian manuscripts to work with in their day, they reasonably opted to use the more numerous Byzantine manuscripts.
Still, despite the advantages of modern-day translators over the King James translators; such as, increased scholarship and research, the discovery of the Sinaitic, Vatican, and Alexandrian manuscripts, and archeological discoveries like the Dead Sea Scrolls, some still advocate that the Byzantine manuscripts are preferable to the Alexandrian manuscripts when it comes to the translation of Scripture.
The argument made by some in favor of the Byzantine manuscripts is based on the fact that they are more numerous. As a result, some scholars argue that scribal errors are more easily detected in the Byzantine manuscripts, since so many are available for comparison. For instance, if only one of several manuscripts contains a peculiarity, the peculiarity is easily dismissed as a scribal error. On the other hand, if the peculiarity is contained in one of the most ancient manuscripts, it is much harder to detect because of the lack of comparative manuscripts to ancient ones.