Searching for the Truth in the King James Bible;
Finding it, and passing it on to you.

Steve Van Nattan






Questions for Textual Critics


1 Corinthians 15:34 Awake to righteousness, and sin not;
for some have not the knowledge of God: I speak this to your shame.


Bible "Textual Critics" are like Anthropologists: They believe that the Bible follows an EVOLUTIONARY process. Sort of an initial "Big Bang" and the puzzle was then assembled in time!  

That is, God inspired the "original" perfect and inerrant, but having failed to find an infallible way to protect it from Satan"s attack, soon lost control over part of it and corruption set in. Unable to detect the initial problem, God only realized the deteriorating situation much later when it was ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE to recover what was lost.

I never heard of a mathematician
who was alarmed for the safety of a demonstrated proposition. But, I have heard of hundreds of alleged Christian scholars who are alarmed for the safety of the Word of God.

And, can you believe it, they are the very ones who dissect it, analyze it, and massage it continually, and in the end they come up with all manner of "problem passages," "translation errors," and "unfortunate renderings" which they promptly proceed to correct from their effulgent throbbing intellects. What mathematician would prove a theorem, and then, not satisfied, try to destroy it.

Pawn's Bridge of Asses, and the square proof of a right triangle, are sacred truth. Faith in such Truth gets you from Philadelphia to Albuquerque without ending up in Miami. Thus, I conclude that any alleged Christian scholar who tries to correct the Word of God does NOT believe the Word of God. He is damned to hell in a handbasket. The only pity is that he will NOT go quietly.

Steve Van Nattan

Hence, the effort to attempt to salvage the "original" 20 centuries later, with the help of man (actually, Man, as it can be found in John 9:35 in modern versions!) that is, the "Bible scientific Textual Critic"!

Some already say that the "original" Bible will be found soon with the help of computers. That is, once all the available data is collected and processed in a computer, the true Bible will reappear (but, of course, after a while, the "Computer" will produce the first updated revision!!)! Naturally, all this implies very strongly that the church of Jesus Christ never had the complete Bible, and God is to blame for the situation!

Since that true Bible is not yet available, and since God"s Holy Character in on the line, that is, God is still in trouble for His carelessness regarding His original Blueprint, the "Textual Critics" insist that at this juncture in the Church"s History, the question of "original preservation" is defined this way: God lost the First Script! Hence, the [APOSTATE!] church adopting the "Preference Stance", that is, a Christian does not have any other option but to do his best with what is at hand:


CHOOSE (from among a few dozen "good" versions) a preference and USE it the best he can!

Yet, because many Christians believe that God NEVER lost His original Masterpiece, and they insist that in English the Authorized Version is that Bible, AND THEY FIGHT TO KEEP IT, the "Textual Critics" have launched a campaign to DISCREDIT and ATTACK that particular Bible Translation and call those Christians a sectarian cult.

Those Christians, on the other hand, are no cowards and FIGHT to keep their valuable Sword. They have already [MANY TIMES!] DEFEATED the "Textual Critics" for the important FACT that they have in their hands the real Sword of the Spirit of God, His inerrant and infallible word, and the battle is, after all, a simple squeamish between that STRONG sword made of hardened steel against a "COLLECTION" of small toy-swords made of third grade recycled plastic!

Textual critics are religious actors always rehearsing the same fictitious act and never upholding the godliness required by God Almighty. "But refuse profane and old wives" fables, and exercise thyself rather unto godliness", 1 Tim 4:7.

Look at the amount of modern "bible" versions in circulation, ALL tampering with the Scriptures and none being in any way near the "standard" the church would require.

One hundred of those "actors" presumptuously assembled the NIV and then, realizing that the work was a total worthless flop, not only CONDEMNED it, but also included in the condemnation ALL other modern "translations" done by other such self-appointed critics. Read carefully the last paragraph of the NIV"s Preface and see for yourself. The authors of such dishonouring work even blaspheme, giving glory to God for the mess they created!

In the past, pastors explained the Scriptures under the conviction that God was watching, rewards godliness and all the honour should be given to Him. Today is not like that. Here comes the ACTOR learned in "Textual Criticism" with all his arrogance, questioning the readings and offering his leanings and views.

As I see it, the modern "Textual critic" is a desperately wicked element in the environment of the apostate Christian Church.

He is a highly poisonous species of tares, breeding easily in the fertile ground of apostasy, among the weak wheat, suffocating any good seed with his poisonous exhalations.

This individual thrusts all his evil agnosticism upon his victims, who are the common unaware Christians, naively assuming that it is safe to accept the direction he points out (pointing spiritual true north to south!).

This deceiving critic is guilty of attacking the Scriptures and robbing them from his uninformed victims.

No church group can ever prosper in the spiritual realm giving any ground to such vicious and damned ACTOR.

The textual critic is the modern Judas Iscariot, earning a living in a community that he victimizes and will end betraying.

He is the thief who steals the goods from his friends, in this case, the Holy Bible.

This is the enemy of spiritual innocence, ready to offer the baby in Christ a "COLLECTION" of his "bible products" and never agreeing that the new Christian is incapable of understanding why he needs so many "bibles" to be able to read the Scriptures without the critic"s help.

The textual critic represents the height in hypocritical deception. He believes no Scriptures. His approach to the Bible is to question each paragraph and reshape the meaning of each word. He lies with no remorse at the slightest challenge.  There is no final authority in any book on earth, he is sure of it. Yet, being sure that he cannot be sure of anything, he wishes to tower himself above God"s word and accept the ovation!  

The following questions to "Textual Critics" are only a small "anthology" of "thoughts" to make the "Critic" aware of his fragile plastic standing. Some questions they could answer right away, but they will not, for FEAR of ridicule and disapproval from colleagues in the same SCHOLARSHIP CULT!




1.    What version do you use mostly and why?

2.    You say that there is no perfect translation of the Bible. Was that some revelation you received from the Holy Spirit, the Author of Scripture, or did you get it from another man?

3.    If no translation is perfect, what is then perfect in Christianity?

4.    If God took care of 98% in the best translation, why did He leave out only two percent?

5.    Was the Holy Spirit, the Author of Scripture, not fully interested in PRESERVING the Scriptures pure in English?

6.    Can the Christians absolutely (100%!) trust what the scholars say?

7.    When a scholar translates from the "original" into English, is his translation ALSO imperfect?

8.    Which bible version would you say I can hold to my heart and be sure is 100% the true Bible in English? If you say "none", is your answer 100% correct?

9.    What bible version would you give a baby in Christ with the recommendation that he would NEVER need another one?

10. Why do scholars discount the Holy Spirit"s involvement in the Authorized translation?

11. Why do scholars never suspect the devil"s interference to corrupt the modern versions?

12. How do you explain to a new Christian that the most successful period of the Church History was when the English church used the Authorized Version?

13. How do you account for the fact that there never was any true revival with the "better" versions available today?

14. If God lost part of His inspired Script, why had He to wait until the 20th century to attempt to recover it with the help of man?

15. Since a new convert has no chance in any liberal church to stick to the standard Bible in English, which version do you recommend as the best for him and why?

16. If there are two types of bibles, based on two "families" of manuscripts, was the Devil in any way involved in attacking the Bible?

17. Do you believe God lost the original on purpose? Or, was it an accident?

18.  Do you believe a Christian should always speak the truth IN CHRIST, not lie, according to 1 Timothy 2:7, in the KJV? Do you believe Satan attacked that particular verse, or do you think Paul never wrote it like that?

19. Do you like the NWT? If not, tell us why.

20.   If we live in the Laodicean period of Church History, why would the church need to recover the "original" Bible?

21.  When the RV came to life, why was it NOT a perfect translation?

22.  When the NASB came to life why did they call it the New American "Standard" without ever been read in any church? Why "standard"? What was wrong with the old standard?

23.   Why does the church need one new "re-translation" and/or revision every six months?

24.  Where in the Bible is any inference given that textual critics were appointed to do any work for the Lord?

25.  What was wrong with the word "STUDY" in the Bible, to be removed from modern versions?

26.  Where does the Bible say anything GOOD about textual critics?

27.  When any textual critic translates from the "original", is it right the first time, or only after other 99 critics have confirmed it?

28. Why does the NIV call God Almighty TOLERANT in Romans 2:4?

29.  Can you explain why the NIV translators declare ALL translations of the Bible imperfect works (last paragraph in its Preface)?

30.  Why did the NKJV REMOVE all the singular and plural (ye) pronouns from its text?

This in reference to the fact that the KJV translators purposely used a pronoun arrangement which was (a) never used before or after on the street, and (b) made clear whether you/plural or you/singular were being discussed in both the Hebrew and the Greek.