Ahem ... not to rain on anyone's meme parade, but ...

The basis of the KJV NT is the so-called Textus Receptus which is a collection of then-known Greek texts originally published by Erasmus. The Textus Receptus is the basis for most Reformation-era translations, including the KJV. But it is not fair to say that the KJV is a "translation of translations". This is a persistent misreporting of the facts among atheists and does us no favors as it is an ignorant and incorrect argument.

It is true that a better corpus of texts is available today. Even Westcott and Hort, the 1880s collection of then-known best NT manuscripts that forms the basis of many translations, is a distinct improvement over the Textus Receptus.

It is true that no one has even a fragment of an original manuscript of any NT text (and certainly not of any OT texts). The opportunity for degradation is in the scribal copying from the original language, however, not in some imagined layers of translations.

This error might have originated with the fact that some English Bible translations (such as Wycliffe's) are based on the Latin Vulgate, a latin translation of scripture, which does place ONE layer of translation between the reader and the original language. The Vulgate dates from the late 4th century and is the work of Jerome and encompasses most of the OT and NT. However ... no commonly used translations in the modern era are based on the Vulgate.

It is also not correct to state that we have 8,000 "contradictory" copies. We have 8,000 manuscripts with generally minor differences, most the rough equivalent of modern "typos", from which the likely original correct sense can be pretty reliably obtained. Indeed, the more versions the better, because when correctly dated one can have more confidence in which version is a good balance of the best to use / closest to the original / least corrupt.

The Bible is so internally and factually and logically contradictory, and often unsupported or outright contradicted by archaeologists and historians, that we don't have to concoct or exaggerate the textual difficulties inherent in translating it.

Yep. And it is considered by bibly experts to be the worst translation, which I believe just makes it even more loved by the evangelical branch