The all embracing argument against the Majority (or Traditional or Byzantine) text is simple but a deliberate stink bomb - "We have the earliest, best, and most scientific texts of the New Testament in Sinaiticus - Aleph, and Vaticanus - B.
"A hit! A palpable hit! Not as deep as a well nor as wide as a barn-door, but twill do, twill do." (Shakespeare, Hamlet, paraphrased)
Facts -
Sinaiticus was "discovered" by Count Tischendorf, its revealing choked with ridiculous claims of being doomed for the trash or fire or both. But it looked brand new when first viewed by others, later partially darkened by the acid of lemons, perhaps. A 1500 year old skin (parchment) does not look white and perfect. David Daniels considers Sinaiticus a forgery, offering a lot of evidence for that claim.
Vaticanus was also used by Tischendorf to claim glory for finding and revealing the "two earliest" witnesses of the New Testament. Considering the animosity of the Church of Rome in regards to the Bible, a solo codex very much different from Sinaiticus, could easily be a production of the papacy to undermine the Gospel.
The Majority Text is witnessed in thousands of examples, about 95% of the total. Very important - the distinctive Majority Text was quoted verbatim by the earliest Christian writers, which means the KJV text was there at the beginning, carefully copied and preserved in many different ways, such as citations in the early Church Fathers.
The NIV, ESV, and New KJV are tainted by the eclectic touch, the supposed background text really being a hodge-podge of whatever the editors chose. So - "their brilliant new scientific and very early text of the New Testament" only exists in their darkened minds. They have sliced out many words, verses, and sections of the New Testament, claiming "oldest and best" but offering "fraud and make believe."
The New KJV, always changing, offers footnotes to the Nestle Aland, which is like saying in many places, "The world is round." footnote "But the newest scholars say - flat."