Your broad-sweeping generalization has not soundly been proven to be true by verifiable specifics--an actual examination and collation of all existing Greek NT manuscripts with specific results giving the actual number of MSS for each individual word of the Greek NT.
Actually it has. It's been proven to align with the majority by collation with all the existing Greek NT MSS by the best: the Nestle Aland Text, which is the standard authority that
all MS scholars recognize (and which btw is biased in favor of the NV's, not the KJV, therefore they have no motive to inflate the results in favor of the KJV):
They called the manuscripts that align with the KJV,
minus those added for the translation of NV's,
"the majority of all manuscripts"
"readings supported by the majority of all manuscripts"
and other times they also called it the "majority"
-Nestle Aland
Novum Testamentum Graece, 27th Ed., pp. 51, 55, 46
Now simply take into account Dean Burgon's numbers. The MSS added for the NV's were out of alignment with 99/100 of the majority. That means they were in alignment with 1%. Meanwhile the KJV did not use those MSS, and therefore remained in line with the 99%:
Important: Realize that
within the Majority Text, there are of course variations, and even some places where certain of the MSS will agree in part with the Alexandrian-type MSS. This however is separate from the fact that while the Majority Text can vary
within itself, it still shares an overall cohesion of 99%
when compared alongside Codex B, Aleph, Bezae, and P75, which only align with 1% of that overall majority (disagreeing with 99 of the 100 MSS). That's the math. Those are the numbers provided by Dean Burgon.
Not to mention, the KJV is supported by older texts that include the Peshitta, Vetus Latina, Vetus Syra, Magdalen Papyrus, and readings supported by the church fathers that Erasmus aligned with in rejection of Vaticanus.
(Btw I have to credit Dr. Gene Kim here for this info, I found it in a video on his channel. I believe he's the only one who ever graduated with a doctorate from PBI).
Edit: It should be noted that even James White does not dispute that the KJV aligns with the Majority Text. His debate strategy was instead built upon trying to pull together data that diluted the difference between the Majority Text and the Alexandrian-type, i.e. citing rare Alexandrian-type MSS discovered "outside the Alexandrian area" as reason to rid the location distinction that separates between Byzantine-type and Alexandrian-type, or citing rare readings where a Byzantine-type MS would align in one part with an Alexandrian-type. Unfortunately his approach was one of poor mathematics, as he weighed the variables incorrectly: he tried to use rare exceptions to realign the entire variable set, when in fact their overall relativity to each other was barely adjusted by these significantly fewer exceptions.
The one Greek MSS that was handcopied from a printed edition of the Textus Receptus can hardly be soundly counted as manuscript evidence since it could copy conjectures introduced in a printed edition.
Isolating and arguing against the Textus Receptus is the typical approach; the Textus Receptus was just one of multiple texts that the KJV translators cross-referenced and analyzed. And even still, it is good that the TR did not include the manuscripts that were far more out of alignment with the majority of extant MSS: a 99 out of 100 disagreement is no joke. It's not like you're arguing to defend an 80/100 disagreement with the majority, you're stuck with 99/100. That's an extremely bold stance to take, and you would need
ample evidence to outweigh it to successfully defend the NV's.