Where did King James only originate?

Before 1930:

William Lyon Phelps published his "Human Nature in the Bible" copyrighted 1921- (Paper Trail) which is before 1930.

But the crowning achievement of those spacious times was the Authorised Translation of the Bible, which appeared in 1611. Three centuries of English literature followed; but although they have been crowded with poets and novelists and essayists, and although the teaching of the English language and literature now gives employment to many earnest men and women, the art of English composition reached its climax in the pages of the Bible....

Germans or the Italians or the Spanish; our English translation is even better than the original Hebrew and Greek. There is only one way to explain this; I have no theory to account for the so-called "inspiration of the Bible," but I am confident that the Authorised Version was inspired.

https://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/hnb/intro.htm

Phelps, Human Nature in the Bible, Introduction, p. iv:

Ibid, p. xii:

I admit I haven't read the whole book, but it doesn't sound like it's a treatise on the spiritual preeminence of the KJV. What he does is laud the value of the KJV as a work of literature. This reinforces what I've been saying: the KJV is a work of high literature, but it runs counter to the colloquial Greek in which the New Testament is written. A work of great high English does not a great version of the Bible make.

If Phelps' book is what is considered a milestone in KJV onlyism, it explains why KJV onlyists are so confused.

Phelps, Human Nature in the Bible, Introduction:

https://archive.org/details/cu31924029277195/page/n14/mode/1up

How can a language as flawed and week as the english be better than the more indepth and more complete language of the greek?

Explain this one please.

Just giving some paper trail, anyway, I am just after what the OP is all about.

If the Westcott and Hort text removed "thou shalt not bear false witness" from Romans 13:9, it may very well be that certain translators gravitated towards that text because they were in all reality liars.

I like the ISR '98 occasionally too...made by Christian Jews in South Africa...the later editions are not as "good" in my opinion...
But an off continent translation is sometimes helpful.

The use of language is so subjective that two people can read the same passage and come away with a plethora of ideas.

Mostly because of the style of writing that the scriptures were once written in.

Books were once extremely expensive. Paper wasn't cheap whatsoever. Everything was hand transcribed.

And if you were paying $90,000 for a book... you wanted value for your money...all the writing was concentrated as much as possible to conserve paper and ink. (Every word was precious and expensive)

A very far cry from today where words are cheap...and people look at the expense of time to have enough of them.

That is just nonsense. The KJB was commissioned because of opposition to the Calvinistic Geneva Bible. Which shows that you know little or nothing about this subject.

That is why we need the Holy Spirit to reveal the truth to us. We also need to ensure that we are no taking scriptures out of context. Someone ( I won't name him), who is called a prophet, declared that the Holy Spirit is Lord, based on one scripture. Plainly this is a complete misinterpretation. No one is going to bow the knee and confess that the Holy Spirit is Lord. God has declared that Jesus is Lord.

Westcott and Hort were undoubtedly liars since they blatantly lied about the history of the Greek text, and perverted the truth. They falsely claimed that the Received Text had been corrupted, and that the corrupted manuscripts which they were using was the pure text!

That's weird. How can a translation be better than the original?

Westcott and Hort were undoubtedly liars since they blatantly lied about the history of the Greek text, and perverted the truth. They falsely claimed that the Received Text had been corrupted, and that the corrupted manuscripts which they were using was the pure text! Indeed the Westcott & Hort Theory was a total hoax, yet there were only a few who exposed these liars

My question to the OP is.... Do you already know the answer or are you looking for the answer? Sometimes people get an idea in their heads and just run with it. Kind of like the flat earth belief....

As I already said, at first I thought it started with Benjamin G. Wilkinson's book. But someone said no, it started much earlier. So I started wondering about it. I figured KJV onlyists would know where they got the idea if anyone would. If not from Wilkinson, then who or where. Was it from a source earlier than Wilkinson? No one seems to know where they got the idea. I find that odd.

From what I know so far, the roots seem to go back to Westcott & Hort and the beginnings of Biblical criticism. But the picture I'm getting is that these ideas probably crystalized with Wilkinson and became available to the wider public after 1930.

By the way, I'm not saying that simply because Wilkinson was a Seventh-day Adventist that means the KJV only movement is associated with SDA. Some people have insinuated that Wilkinson wasn't the originator of KJV onlyism in an attempt to distance it from SDA. I couldn't care less about SDA. All I care about is what influence Wilkinson had on the KJV only movement.

So you don't know the answer and are really looking for someone to give you the answer. Good luck with that. I am more prone to believe that it is a hop on the band wagon idea. No one usually likes to admit to being the first one who had the idea.