Where did King James only originate?

Yes. The NASB is full of errors. Here are a few (since it would take a book to spell them all out and explain them):

MARY WAS APPROACHING CHRIST
KING JAMES BIBLE — John 20:17, “Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.”

MARY WAS ALREADY CLINGING TO CHRIST
NEW AMERICAN STANDARD VERSION — John 20:17, “Jesus said to her, “Stop clinging to Me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to My brethren and say to them, ‘I ascend to My Father and your Father, and My God and your God.’”
----------------------------
THE GREEK WORD FOR FAULTS IS CORRECTLY TRANSLATED
KING JAMES BIBLE — James 5:16, “Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.”

THE GREEK WORD FOR FAULTS (παραπτώματα) IS REPLACED WITH SINS (ἁμαρτίας) IN THE CORRUPT TEXT
NEW AMERICAN STANDARD VERSION — James 5:16, “Therefore, confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another so that you may be healed. The effective prayer of a righteous man can accomplish much.”
-----------------------------------------
CHRIST WAS WORSHIPPED BY A LEPER
KING JAMES BIBLE — Matthew 8:2, “And, behold, there came a leper and worshipped him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.”

CHRIST WAS NOT WORSHIPPED BY THIS LEPER
NEW AMERICAN STANDARD VERSION — Matthew 8:2, “And a leper came to Him and bowed down before Him, and said, “Lord, if You are willing, You can make me clean.”
------------------------------------------
Note: People bow down before others without necessarily worshipping them. But the Greek word proskuneo is properly translated as "worship" which fits the context.

Strong's Concordance
proskuneó: to do reverence to
Original Word: προσκυνέω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: proskuneó
Phonetic Spelling: (pros-koo-neh'-o)
Definition: to do reverence to
Usage: I go down on my knees to, do obeisance to, worship.

Lol... you really should think before you blast off your posts. Because you are so certain that you put it in bold-face type, I'm going to demonstrate your error--or ignorance--in all points.

Exactly: He translated the KJV back into Greek. Whether he cobbled together the bits of Greek texts that would translate to the English of the KJV, or directly translated the KJV, is secondary. My point is substantiated. His work is the KJV as if it were translated into Greek. By the way, in terms of evidence for the validity of the TR, it has absolutely no value.

Nehemiah6 said:

However, the AV was not translated from any one printed edition of the Greek text. The AV translators relied heavily upon the work of William Tyndale and other editions of the English Bible. Thus there were places in which it is unclear what the Greek basis of the New Testament was. Scrivener in his reconstructed and edited text used as his starting point the Beza edition of 1598, identifying the places where the English text had different readings from the Greek. He examined eighteen editions of the Textus Receptus to find the correct Greek rendering

Click to expand...

Exactly: it's an eclectic text. It's not from any one manuscript. The people who developed what came to be known as the TR examined the very few available Greek manuscripts, determined the most likely readings (in their learned opinions) and printed their various editions.

Full Definition of eclectic

1: composed of elements drawn from various sources
also : heterogeneous
2: selecting what appears to be best in various doctrines, methods, or styles
(source: Merriam-Webster)

Nehemiah6 said:

, and made the changes to his Greek text. When he finished he had produced an edition of the Greek New Testament which more closely underlies the text of the AV than any one edition of the Textus Receptus."

Click to expand...

Your quotation refutes your claim... completely.

Irrelevant; Stephanus is a printed Greek edition, not a manuscript! I'm surprised that you made such a basic error; I thought you were smarter than that. Perhaps your TR-only bias has blinded you to both reason and facts.

Any claim that a modern text is incorrect simply on the basis that it is different from the KJV is simply groundless. The KJV is not the standard against which English renderings are to be judged. It is equally valid to say the KJV is incorrect because it does not match the NASB.

I'm certain that you want to educate me on the matter.

The kjv was translated by people who put a very great amount of prayer into being able to come up with the right words to express what was given to them in the Greek text, of the Textus Receptus.

I do not know the history of it other than the fact that God was intimately involved in its creation;

Because God, being both sovereign and Omnipotent and loving;

Because He is sovereign and Omnipotent, has the power to preserve the unadulterated message of the gospel in the Textus Receptus and the kjv;

And because He is loving; and wants all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth (1 Timothy 2:4, 2 Peter 3:9); He was motivated to do so.

Therefore, name one good reason why He wouldn't have preserved His unadulterated message in the Textus Receptus.

One thing I know about its history: the plagues of the book of Revelation were not added to the people who penned it and translated from it. And therefore it does not add to the word (Revelation 22:18-19); but the text that is utilized by modern translations rather takes away from it. And their punishment (Revelation 22:18-19) is invisible.

While if the translators of the kjv had added to the word, their punishment would have been extensively visible (Revelation 22:18-19)..

In other words, you have opinions, but not facts. Please, for your own sake, do your homework.

My faith tells me that the kjv is the standard by which we judge all other texts.

And,

Heb 11:1, Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

My faith is the evidence of something that you are not seeing because you have a biased understanding of the issue.

Teach, teacher.

You have already demonstrated that you are either unwilling or unable to learn from me. You will learn if you are motivated to learn, and put in the effort to chase down the information.

If you are sincere in your desire to learn, I recommend that you read Dr. James White's The King James Only Controversy.

That is simply inane.

Any other ridiculous comments you want to make?

I am not a wealthy man and do not have access to books other than what I can find on the internet.

I also spend most of my time reading the Bible and do not generally read other books.

But I do read posts by people who might relate to me what is written in certain books.

So, if you know what is the history of the Textus Receptus; and if that history has a bearing on our conversation; then I would encourage you to bring the information that you are thinking of to bear on the conversation.

(Otherwise it will never be brought to point as concerning what you want it to do in my life)

I have already said to you that I have considered your accusations of pride and am seeking the Lord as concerning whether those accusations have any merit.

So I can indeed learn from you. I am willing to look at any information that you might have to offer.

Yes; for I love to make ridiculous comments.

I would suggest that you do a comparison of the kjv to other translations and see for yourself whether there are things that are included in the kjv that are not included in modern translations.

You may want to be cheated out of something that the Holy Spirit might want to minister to you; I don't.

I am well aware that there are passages that appear in the KJV and not in some modern translations. That doesn't substantiate your assertion that the KJV is the standard. All it does is demonstrate that there are differences.

I am confident that I won't be, for Jesus didn't say, "He will be limited by the translation of the Bible that you read."

Rather, as Jesus promised, "He will lead you into all truth".

He will do so in your life by leading you to read a translation that includes all of His words to you; if you are indeed listening to the voice of the Holy Spirit.

I'll provide the information when I have some time to post it.

You just added to Jesus' words.

Stephen, James, many others, and likely some of the 12 apostles died before the canon of Scripture was complete. Was the Holy Spirit unable to lead them into all truth? How then is the Holy Spirit not able to lead Christians into all truth even if they don't have a complete Bible?

Well, then, I suppose that the plagues of the book of Revelation are going to be added to me, therefore.

Okay, thanks.

Excellent response.
A further point....God gave us the Bible as a road map to get from this physical life to our eternal life. If He did not preserve for us a clear map we would not make it. Therefore, He is loving, forgiving and understanding so we have it...KJV 1611 edition.

If that person was on the forum, I would say something directly to them. I have done so a number of times. That way they have the opportunity to respond to what I say. If I call out someone by name who is not on the forum, I deny them the right of reply. I did contact the web site of the false prophet but I received no reply. Which is something I've come to expect.

The critical text leaves a great deal to be desired; but to go from that to, the TR and the KJV 1611 is God's only infallible word is. . .well. . .stupid, for lack of a better word.

God gave us brains for our benefit; to not use them is to dishonor Him; and it's lazy. KJV only is the lazy person's dream; no effort necessary.

"The simple believes every word, but the prudent considers well his steps."—Proverbs 14:15

P.S. I'm still waiting to learn if verse numbering is a corruption and if the Apocrypha is too. If the 1611 KJV is God's only uncorrupted word, then the TR upon which it's based and the Apocrypha must also be in that category. It's the only reasonable conclusion; and I take it from the silence there's no other alternative.