A Random Verse That Destroys Calvinism (And "Is The ESV a Calvinist Bible?")
"But the man who has settled the matter in his own mind, who is under no compulsion but who has control over his own will, and who has made up his mind not to marry the virgin - this man also does the right thing." (1 Corinthians 7:37, NIV)
When you get past all the layers Calvinism wraps itself in to disguise the bad parts, it ultimately teaches - at the heart of it all - that God causes/controls everything, even controlling our wills and causing our sins. (But He then punishes us for the things He caused us to do, which would make Him unjust, no matter how much Calvinists try to deny it and cover it up. See this post for some links about that.) Calvinism ultimately teaches that everything we do is because God preplanned it, ordained it, and compels us to do it. That we have no ability to make up our own minds about things because God predetermines everything we think, feel, do. There is no such thing as free-will. We have no real control over our wills, actions, desires, etc.
But in this verse, Paul clearly refers to the fact that we can make up our own minds about issues, without being under compulsion to choose what we do. That we are in "control" over our wills.
This clearly goes against Calvinism. It clearly puts the responsibility for our decisions and desires and actions on us, not on God.
However, Calvinists would accuse me of essentially saying that humans are stronger than God, of claiming that we are in control/sovereign and He is not. This is how they manipulate people into agreeing with them, making them feel ashamed and unhumble for sounding like they are taking power away from God and giving it to humans.
But this is not the case.
What I am saying, and what the Bible shows, is that we have control (to a large degree) over our wills, over our decisions, because God made it that way. Because He chose to limit His use of control/power/authority to a degree, so that He could give us the right and responsibility to make real choices. Because He wanted it to be this way, so that those who choose to love Him and obey Him do it willingly and voluntarily. And this is why He can rightly hold us accountable for our choices, for our sins and unbelief. Because He didn't cause us to do them; we chose to do them.
We have control over our wills. God does not control our wills, thoughts, feelings, choices, etc. for us.
However, do you want to know something interesting?
The NIV, Berean Study Bible, NASB, KJV, CSB, HCSB, Aramaic Bible in Plain English, among others, all use the phrase about the man having "control/authority/power over his own will."
But the Bible translation most used by Calvinists, the one translated by many Calvinists and "glorified" by many well-known Calvinists - the English Standard Version, the ESV (*see note at bottom) - changes it to "but having his desire under control."
Interesting!
And very different!
Of all the typical word-for-word translations, that's the only one that words it that way: "having his desire under control."
To me, this is a deliberate attempt to sneak Calvinism in, by putting less "control" in man's hands over his will than what the Bible originally said.
"Having control over his will" is active. The control is done by the person. He has control over his will. But "having his desire under control" doesn't have to mean the man himself is doing the controlling. It's just saying his desire is under control.
But by whom?
It's like the difference between saying "I painted my house" and "I was having my house painted." Big difference! (One thing to know about educated, dogmatic Calvinists is that they are VERY careful in their wording, picking words and phrases that sound "free-will" but that are really the opposite. See these posts for more on that: "Exposing What Calvinists Really Mean" and "Confronting Calvinism's Deceptive Nonsense".)
So if He gave you the "unregenerated nature" which comes only with the desire to sin and reject Him, then you will only always want to sin/reject Him and you can only always choose to sin/reject Him. You are a slave to the desires of the unregenerated nature that God gave you. You can't choose anything different and can't even want to choose anything different because your nature determines that you will desire to sin and only to sin. And so you can only make the choices that go with your desires. And it's all been predestined by God from the beginning.
[So if a Calvinist says you can make "real choices," they only mean you can make the choices that go with the desires of the nature God gave you. And the unregenerated person only has the desire to sin/reject God, and so they can only choose to sin/reject God. But Calvinists will still call this "making the choice you want to make," even though God predestined the desires you have and the choices you make based on those desires, and you had no ability to choose otherwise. And then since you "wanted" to sin and reject God (because of the desires built in to your God-given unregenerated nature), Calvinists will claim that you deserve the punishment and the eternal life in hell that you get. Because you "desired" to do what you did, even though you could only desire/do what God predestined. It's disgusting how shamelessly deceptive Calvinism is!]
But if God has "elected" you for salvation (lucky people!), then He will eventually replace your unregenerated nature with a "regenerated" one (through the work of the Holy Spirit who "wakes you up inside" and causes you to be believe and be saved), which comes with the desire to obey and do good. And then you will be able to choose to obey and do good, because your desires are under the control of the Holy Spirit.
The way the ESV words this verse essentially changes it from "man controls his will/desires" (meaning then that man would have the ability to choose between various options, to decide which desires to follow, to change his mind, etc.) to "man's desires are under control" (meaning, according to Calvinism, that they are under the control of the Holy Spirit, not of man, and so therefore man cannot really make his own decisions or choose between various options/desires).
I would say that instead of faithfully translating the verse as it is, the translators clearly and shamelessly altered it to fit with Calvinism.
("But why would the translators of a Bible do that?" you might wonder. See the note near the bottom.)
[And a little necessary paperwork here:
Moving on to more verses (These are just the ones I found in a short time of looking. And I recently switched the order a little, to put a few of the easier ones near the top. Also, I will add more as I find them.):
But the ESV ends it this way: "... not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance." Of the commonly-used "word-for-word" translations, the ESV is the only one that says "reach" instead of "come to." Why is this?
This may seem like a little distinction, but it's not. And I think it's another attempt to make the Bible more Calvinist. And here's why:
Let's say I lived in Kansas, and I posted a note on my blog saying "I hope everyone comes to Kansas." I would be expressing a desire that I want anyone and everyone to visit me in Kansas, no matter where they are or who they are or where they are going. It's an open invitation to anyone who wants to respond.
But if I posted a note saying "I hope everyone reaches Kansas," it would clearly imply that I am talking only to and about those who are already headed to Kansas. You can only "reach" something if you are already headed towards it, if it's the end goal you are striving for. I clearly would not be telling people headed to Alaska or Canada or California that "I hope you reach Kansas." That would be an irreconcilable contradiction. It would be totally unrelated to and irrelevant for them. If they are headed in a different direction, to a different destination, they will never reach Kansas no matter how long they travelled. So obviously I am not talking to them. I am simply saying that I hope those who are purposely headed to Kansas reach their destination.
This little change totally makes the verse more Calvinistic.
2 Peter 3:9, when interpreted accurately, is about God giving an "open invitation" to all people, saying that He wants anyone and everyone - no matter where they are in life or where they are headed or how they are living - to come to repentance and be saved, which would rightly imply that it's possible for anyone and everyone to be saved if they choose to repent.
But the subtle change the ESV gives it (and only the ESV) now makes it a statement only to those who are already headed toward repentance, which, according to Calvinism, are the "elect," those God predestined for repentance/salvation. It's essentially saying "God doesn't want any of His elected people to perish, but He wants everyone who's predestined for repentance (the elect) to reach repentance."
Big difference!
Big, big difference!
(And interestingly enough, in none of the other verses where this Greek word is used do the ESV translators change it to "reach." Only in this verse. But this Greek word doesn't mean "reach." It means "come, contain, go, have place, receive." But it's never used as "reach" - as in "to arrive at a particular destination that you are striving for" - except in the ESV's 2 Peter 3:9, where it changes the verse from being an open invitation to all people to come to the point of repentance, no matter where they currently are ... to God seemingly expressing His desire that people who are headed for repentance "reach" repentance, which, in Calvinism, would only be the elect.)
#2: (updated) Revelation 13:8 in the ESV says "and all who dwell on earth will worship it, everyone whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who was slain." In the ESV, in Calvinism, the names of the elect were written in the book of life before the world was created, affirming their view of predestination, election.
#3: Most versions state 2 Thessalonians 2:13 like the NIV does: "But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers and sisters loved by the Lord, because God chose you as firstfruits to be saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth."
But the ESV is one of the very few translations that adds a comma in a very strategic place: "... because God chose you as the firstfruits to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth."
This is major! It would be like the difference between "I chose you to be the first to see the Grand Canyon from my new helicopter" and "I chose you to be the first to see the Grand Canyon, from my new helicopter."
In the first one, I chose you to be the first to get a ride in my new helicopter to see the Grand Canyon, but not necessarily to be the first to see the Grand Canyon. Just to see it from my new helicopter. But in the second, I chose you to be the first to see the Grand Canyon, and you will see it from my new helicopter.
My husband has a t-shirt which says "Let's eat kids" followed by "Let's eat, kids," and then comes the punchline: "Punctuation saves lives."
That tiny, little comma makes a huge difference, just as it does in 2 Thessalonians 2:13. In the "no comma" version (most translations) it means something like "God chose you to be the first to get salvation through the Spirit and belief in truth." Because before Jesus, they didn't have the option of believing in Jesus or of having the Holy Spirit. They had to maintain their salvation by their devotion to God, as evidence in following the Law. But when Jesus came, He did away with the Law (fulfilling its requirements), and so now we are saved by belief in Him and through the work of the Spirit (which is available to any and all who will choose to repent and believe in Jesus). And that generation, the one Paul is writing to, is the first generation to be able to experience salvation through belief and the Holy Spirit, making them the "firstfruits" of the "age of grace."
But the ESV translation essentially changes it from "God chose you to be saved through the Spirit and belief" to "God chose you to be saved" with the additional tidbit that you'll be saved through the Spirit and belief.
This is far different than the first one.
The first one is about God choosing which method of salvation the generation gets, and the second one is about God choosing who gets saved. Big, big difference! No wonder the Calvinist ESV puts in the comma, turning it into support for their theological view that "God chose who gets saved and who doesn't."
"Blessed is the one who perseveres under trial ..." (NIV)
"Blessed is the man that endureth temptation ..." (KJV)
In these translations, the person is the one doing the persevering/enduring. According to the concordance, the word "endures" in this verse means to bear a trial bravely and calmly. This is something the person has to do. It takes effort and wise choices to stay faithful and obedient in the face of trials and temptations.
But here it is in the ESV (and only in the ESV): "Blessed is the man who remains steadfast under trial ..." (When the ESV words a verse differently than any other translation out there, sit up and take notice.)
I can see how we might read that and automatically think it's the same thing as "enduring temptation" and "persevering under trials." But is it really the same thing? Why does this little change make a difference?
Because to "remain steadfast" doesn't necessarily mean the person has any choice about it or responsibility over it. It doesn't necessarily require any effort from them. A person can "remain" in a medically-induced coma with no effort from them at all, no choice on their part, because it happened to them, caused by and determined by the doctors. And besides that, to "remain" means to stay in the same place/condition you were already in, to stay the same as you are.
And so in Calvinism, if someone "remains steadfast" it would be because God caused it to happen to them, not that the person had any control over it, and it would be that they are simply staying the same "steadfast" that they always were, which (in Calvinism) would be because God causes the elect to "remain" in the faith, to persevere (the P in the TULIP acronym). This does not require any effort or choice on man's part. It's up to God. If God predestined you to remain steadfast, you'll remain steadfast because He will cause it to happen. But if He didn't, then you will not remain steadfast. You have no control over it, no real choice or responsibility about it. It happens to you, caused by and predetermined by God.
But to be commanded to "endure temptation" and "persevere under trial" (like the other translations say) requires effort and thought and choice and obedience on our parts. We are not just effortlessly "remaining" in some previous predetermined condition; we are working to bear up under a heavy burden, to stay faithful, to not give in to sin. And this is our responsibility, our choice. Not God's.
Essentially, in the ESV and through the eyes of Calvinism, this verse could be read: "Blessed is the man whom God causes to remain steadfast under trial (which would only be the elect), for when he has stood the test (as God ordained he would do) he shall receive the crown of life, which God has promised to those whom He predestined to love Him, the elect."
[And it's the same thing in James 5:11 where the ESV changes "we count as blessed those who have persevered" (NIV) to "we consider those blessed who remained steadfast" (ESV).
In the NIV (and others), the people themselves did the persevering (making faithful and obedient choices). But in the ESV, they simply remained steadfast, which doesn't necessarily mean it was through their effort or choices. It's just an observation that they "remained." And in Calvinism, it would be because God caused it to happen to them.]
#9: Also notice that, in James 5:11, the ESV is one of the few translations that changes it from something like "You have heard of Job's perseverance and have seen what the Lord finally brought about [the outcome]" (NIV) ... to "You have heard of the steadfastness of Job, and you have seen the purpose of the Lord."
This "purpose of the Lord" changes it from a message about God working Job's self-chosen faithfulness into something good ... to a message about God causing Job to be faithful for His particular reasons and purposes. Big difference!
#10: In Titus 3:3, most of the translations (not counting the more recent "conversational-type" translations) say it the way the NIV does: "At one time we too were foolish, disobedient, deceived and enslaved by all kinds of passions and desires ..." (emphasis added).
KJV: "... deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures ..."
NASB: "... deceived, enslaved to various lusts and pleasures ..."
CSB: "... deceived, enslaved ..."
But the ESV is one of the very few versions that puts it this way: " ... led astray, slaves to various passions and pleasures ..."
In the other translations, "deceived and enslaved" are verbs, something that happens to people before they become believers. They were (allowed themselves to be) deceived and enslaved by their former passions and desires.
But the ESV changes it to a noun, not saying that the people were enslaved by their desires but that they were slaves to their desires. (See here that, in the Greek, "deceived" is a verb. And there is no word for "slave.")
How does this fit with Calvinism?
Because, in Calvinism, we are not free to make our own choices among various options ... or to pick which desires we want to satisfy ... or to decide for ourselves whether we want to reject God or believe in Him. In Calvinism, we are "slaves" to the nature God gave us, to the desires that come with that nature. And as slaves, we cannot desire/choose anything other than what our God-given nature forces us to desire/choose. And we cannot choose to change the nature He gave us. It is up to God to change our natures/desires for us.
And He does this when He gives the elect people (those predestined to heaven) the Holy Spirit to "wake them up inside," causing them to believe, changing their nature from "unrepentant sinner" to "repentant believer," which causes them to desire to do good and to obey God.
But those who have the unrepentant nature (either because they haven't been regenerated yet or because they are one of the non-elect, predestined to hell) are "slaves" to the unregenerated nature. And they can never free themselves from this "slave to sin" condition. And so they can only always desire to sin and only always choose to sin ... unless and until God gives them a new nature, which He only gives to the elect. This means that the non-elect will always be slaves to the "sinner nature," unable to ever choose to do anything but sin and reject God all the time.
Changing it from a verb to a noun changes it from what a person does to who a person is. Changing it from "enslaved" to "slave" changes it from a person who is simply caught up in their sinful desires (but who could turn from their sinful desires and choose to seek God instead) to a person who is doomed forever to follow their sinful desires unless God regenerates them, freeing them from their slavery.
[And the Bible tells us how we become slaves to sin, and it's not that God predestines who will be slaves to sin (the non-elect) and who won't (the elect).
Romans 6:16: "when you offer yourselves to someone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one you obey" (NIV).
Calvinism would say that we sin because we are slaves to sin. But the Bible says that we are slaves to sin because we offer ourselves to our sinful desires. (If you pay careful attention, you'll see that Calvinism often takes biblical truths and reverses them, flipping the truth on its head, such as by saying the elect get the Spirit before they believe, to cause them to believe, whereas the Bible says that first we believe and then we get the Spirit. Same kind of phrases, just backwards, completely changing the Gospel. But because Calvinism still uses the Bible's words, we don't notice the reversals.)
We choose what we want to be enslaved to - by what we offer ourselves to, the desires we give in to.
Contrary to Calvinism, we don't sin because we are slaves to sin (which means, in Calvinism, that we can't get set free from our sin-nature unless God regenerates us), but we are slaves to sin because we choose our sin over God (which means that we can decide to choose God over our sin and that we have full responsibility for our choices).]
Personally, I think the New Living Translation more clearly says what the KJV is trying to say, that believers have been given the job of telling everyone everywhere what God has done so that they, too, might choose to believe in Him and obey Him, bringing glory to His name. This, I believe, is the truth, supported all throughout the Bible when God commands us to choose whom we will serve, to choose obedience instead of disobedience, to set out minds on Him, etc. We choose whether we will believe in Jesus or not, and we choose whether we will follow God's commands of not. God has not predestined this for us.
#15: This is a small one, but maybe not. In Hebrews 11:16, most versions say something like "And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to/approaches/draws near to Him must believe that He exists, and that He rewards those who earnestly seek Him."
But the ESV is the only one that adds the word "would" ... "whoever would draw near to God ..."
To my way of thinking, "anyone who comes to God" is saying that anyone can come to God, that everyone - no matter where they are at or where they are headed - is invited to "come to God."
But the ESV's "whoever would draw near to God" is about only those who are capable of being drawn near to God, those predestined for it, which in Calvinism would be "the elect." Only the elect are predestined to draw near to God, so only the elect can draw near to God, and so the elect are the only ones who ever would draw near to God.
This is no longer about anyone and everyone having the chance to "come to God."
But it's only about those who can, those who "would," those who are predestined to draw near to Him, to seek Him. The elect!
Well, the ESV also makes the same kind of change in Romans 15:31, where it changes it from "them that do not believe" to "unbelievers." This also changes it from people doing some thing, having the responsibility/choice over whether they believe or not, to them being some thing, a non-believer (one of the non-elect, in Calvinism). Since "them that do not believe" is more about people doing the action of not believing - and since Calvinists think we don't really have a choice about if we believe or not - it makes sense that the ESV would prefer instead to say "unbelievers," because the noun "unbelievers" is more about who they were created to be (the non-elect) instead of what they do. It's a teeny, tiny, microscopic step from "unbeliever" to "non-elect."
The interesting part of this is that when I looked up the Greek for this verse, it says that the phrase "do not believe" is actually "refusing to be persuaded." And when I looked it up in the concordance, the definition did indeed show not just that someone doesn't believe or doesn't obey (as if they have no ability to), but that they refuse to believe or obey. This, to me, is a much greater indication of "free-will" than "Calvinist predestination," because we can't refuse something unless it's legitimately offered to us, available to us, possible for us. You can only "refuse" a gift if it was offered to you and possible for you to accept it. You can only refuse to do something if it was possible for you to do it, if you had the chance to do it. If it wasn't truly available to you or possible for you, then it wouldn't be "refusing" it.
In Calvinism, the non-elect are non-believers not because they choose to reject the gospel and the offer of salvation (despite Calvinists who try to make it sound like they believe in free-will), but because salvation was never truly available to them because they were created by Calvi-god for hell. They never truly had the option of believing because they were predestined to (forced to) be unbelievers. Therefore, they are not really "refusing" to believe or refusing the gift of salvation, because it was never really offered to them to begin with. And so it's no wonder we see no reference to "refuse" in this verse in the ESV.
The funny thing is, this word for "refusing to be persuaded" is also in the following verses (among others I'm not listing), but the ESV (and many other translations) leaves out any indication of "refuse." And leaving out the "refused to" downplays personal responsibility and the control we have over our choices, allowing Calvinists to read the verses in a more Calvinist way.
John 3:36 (ESV): "Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life ..." (But it's not just that they do not obey, as if they were one of the non-elect, forced/created to "not obey"; it's that they "refused to obey/believe," meaning that they rejected a legitimate offer/chance to obey/believe.)
1 Peter 2:7-8 (ESV): "So this honor is for you who believe, but for those who do not believe, 'The stone that the builders rejected has now become the cornerstone,' and 'A stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense.' They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do." [It would be so much less Calvinistic to say "but for those who refuse to believe" and "because they refuse to obey the word." And yet that's what it should be! Note: While Calvinists might say that this verse means the people were destined to disobey because they were non-elect, I think there are two other, better, more biblical ways to read this. First option: It's not that they were destined to disobey as if they were non-elect; it's that there were destined to stumble because they disobeyed, because they rejected Jesus, the cornerstone. Here's how the KJV ends verse 8: "... even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed." Maybe others won't agree but, to me, the KJV shows that they are destined to stumble because they are disobedient, whereas the ESV makes it sound like they were destined to disobey and stumble. I think it makes more sense to say that all those who choose to live in disobedience, to reject Jesus, are going to (appointed/destined to) stumble, not that God destines certain people to be disobedient, which would turn Him into an unjust, untrustworthy God. Second option: This verse is a reference specifically to the Jews who rejected Jesus. God foreknew they would reject Jesus, and He allowed them to be destined for that end, working their self-chosen unbelief into His redemptive plans. Both of these still support free-will and personal responsibility.]
Acts 14:2 (ESV): "But the unbelieving Jews stirred up the Gentiles and poisoned their minds against the brothers." (More accurately: "But the Jews who refused to believe ...")
1 Peter 3:20 (ESV): "because they formerly did not obey God ..." (No, they "refused to obey God.")
1 Peter 4:17 (ESV): "For it is time for judgment to begin at the household of God; and if it begins with us, what will be the outcome for those who do not obey the gospel of God?" ("... for those who refuse to obey the gospel of God?")
Hebrews 3:18 (ESV): "And to whom did he swear that they would not enter his rest, but to those who were disobedient?" ("... to those who refused to obey?")
Romans 10:21 (ESV): "But of Israel he says, 'All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and contrary people.'" (Not just "disobedient," but "those who refused to obey.")
Romans 2:8 (ESV): "but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury." ("... for those who refuse to obey the truth!" In Calvinism, the non-elect do not obey the truth because it was never possible for them to obey the truth. But as the Greek says, it's that they refused to obey the truth, meaning that it was possible for them to obey the truth but that they rejected it. There are no non-elect people who are predestined to hell with no chance of believing or being saved. There are only those who had the chance to believe and be saved but rejected it.)
What a difference "refused to" makes! And no wonder the ESV leaves it out. All those missing "refused to's," all those "who did not believe" (verb) changed to "unbelievers" (noun), all those "who believed" (verb) changed to "believers" (noun) make the ESV a lot more Calvinistic than a Bible translation has any right to be!
I'm just sayin'.
UPDATE: These are some new verses I just found, not included at first. I am adding on these last ones, just for the heck of it (if I find any more in the future, I will add them after these). Note: There are other versions that say what the ESV does, but I am only comparing the KJV to the ESV (and to the NIV once).
#60: Titus 1:2 (KJV): “… God, that cannot lie…” And here’s the ESV: “… God, who never lies…” To have a God who never lies is not necessarily the same thing as a God who cannot lie. A God who never lies could still be able to lie, could have a deceptive side or the desire to lie but simply doesn’t act on it. I would rather have a God who cannot lie because there is no deception in Him than a God who can lie but chooses not to (a more untrustworthy character). In the concordance, the Greek word which covers the phrase "who cannot lie" is defined as "free from falsehood." I would expect that means there is no falsehood whatsoever in God Himself, in His entire Being, not just in His speech. Therefore, He cannot lie, making the KJV more accurate.
#61: In John 7, Jesus sends His disciples up to the feast without Him and then He shows up later. The KJV is one of the few translations that doesn’t turn Jesus into a liar.
John 7:8 in the KJV says “Go ye up unto this feast; I go not up yet unto this feast; for my time is not yet full come”, meaning that He won’t go now but will go later, which is what happens.
But the ESV (and many others) says “You go up to the feast. I am not going up to this feast, for my time has not yet fully come,” which sounds like Jesus is saying that He’s not going to the feast at all, which would make Him a liar because He eventually does go. And the comma after “I am not going up to the feast” makes it sound especially so, as if that first part stands alone: “I am not going to the feast.” Which, as we know after reading the rest of the story, is untrue.
#62: Revelation 4:11 (KJV): “… for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.” And now the ESV: “… for you created all things, and by your will they existed and were created.” Interesting! One says things were created for God’s pleasure, and the other removes the idea of God’s emotions/desire and says simply that things were created by His Will.
To Calvinists, God’s Will is essentially synonymous with God pre-planning/causing everything: “God wills everything that happens, and everything that happens is because He willed it,” as if nothing could happen that He doesn’t will and as if we couldn’t fail to do His Will.
But as I’ve come to see it (keeping the Bible verses and God’s character intact), God’s Will is often more about what He wants to have happen, His ideal plan. And this is confirmed by the Greek meaning of the word “pleasure” in Rev. 4:11 in the KJV (a.k.a. "will" in the ESV), which is essentially a combination of God’s pleasure and what He wills. The concordance says that it’s often about God’s “preferred Will,” about “the result hoped for with the particular desire/wish.” It’s not about God preplanning everything that happens and then causing it to happen, but it’s about what God prefers to have happen, meaning that what He prefers doesn’t always happen and that things can happen that He doesn’t prefer (yet He can still work it all for good, into His plans – He’s just that wise and powerful and sovereign). This makes it much less “hard-determinism” than Calvinism’s view of His Will.
And the “preferred Will” definition better explains verses such as Jesus telling us to pray “Your Will be done” (Matthew 6:10) and Jesus saying that He came not to do His Will but the Will of the Father (John 5:30) and Jesus’s parable of the servant who didn’t do the Will of the master (Luke 12:47), all of which use the same Greek word that Rev. 4:11 uses.
If, as Calvinism says, God’s Will is essentially the same as preplanning/causing everything that happens and nothing different could happen – if it would always happen no matter what – then why would we need to pray for His Will to get done, why would Jesus need to agree to put God’s Will first, and how could the servant not do it? It doesn’t make sense.
But if it’s about what God wants to have happen and if He leaves the choice up to us to do it or not (as seen all throughout the Bible), well, now those verses make sense. God’s Will is His preferences of what He wants to have happen [He wills that all men are saved (1 Timothy 2:4), that no one perishes (2 Peter 3:9), that we give thanks in all circumstances (1 Thess. 5:18), that we avoid sexual immorality (1 Thess. 4:3), that we do good to silence the ignorant talk of foolish people (1 Peter 2:15), etc., none of which always happens], but He leaves it up to us to do or not do what He wants us to do, to choose to pray for/seek/obey His preferred Will or to follow our own plans.
#63: 2 Timothy 2:26 (ESV): “and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will.”
But here it is in the KJV: “And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.” Interesting! (Incidentally, this Will also means “preferred Will,” but this time of the devil. It was the devil’s preference to take these people captive.)
In the ESV, after having been taken captive by the devil and forced to do his Will, God grants them repentance (vs 25), and they come to their senses and escape the snare of the devil, which, in Calvinism, would mean that God caused them to believe in Him, to come to their senses, and to escape the devil’s snare.
But in the KJV, they are taken captive at the devil’s Will, but they recover themselves out of the devil’s snare after God grants them repentance. This is not about forcing them to repent and believe (as Calvinism teaches) but about giving them the chance to choose for themselves to repent and believe, to escape the devil’s snare. (Kinda like how God “granted repentance” to the Gentiles, not just the Jews, in Acts 11:18. Being “granted repentance” doesn’t mean He forced them to repent and believe, just that He gave them the opportunity to do it, but they have to choose.)
The ESV is much more about God predestining who escapes Satan’s snare and then causing it to happen, while the KJV is about people choosing for themselves to escape.
#64: This one is not about the ESV but about the NIV, but I think it's important to include it because Calvinists always use this verse to "prove" their idea of "total depravity," that from birth we are all wicked, rebellious, God-haters who could never come to God unless God makes us do it. (Well, only the elect, of course. Those He pre-chose. Everyone else is out of luck.)
Psalm 51:5 in the NIV: "Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me."
Now in the KJV: "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me." It does not say that David was sinful from birth but that he was conceived in sin. It is not a comment about the depravity of babies but about the sin-filled world that babies are born into (or about David's mother's sin which led to his conception, or at least his belief that she sinned). Big difference!
(My husband read of an old belief people used to have back in the day, which was that people were born on the same day of the week that they were conceived. And so if a baby was born on the Sabbath, it meant the parents conceived the baby on a Sabbath, which meant they would have violated Sabbath rules about not having sex on the Sabbath. Who knows, but maybe David is referring to a "sin" along those lines. It's an interesting thought.)
Also, let's see what else God says about this: "... for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth ..." (Genesis 8:21, KJV). Notice that God doesn't say "from birth", but from their "youth." And "youth" doesn't necessarily mean "infancy/childhood" because this word is also used in Psalm 127:4 which talks about "children of the youth," children from one's youth. Babies and small children cannot have children. Grown people have children. Therefore, "youth" in these verses is more about being older, grown, beyond adolescence.
My point is that God says not that we are wicked from birth, as Calvinists say, but from our youth. God doesn't hold sins against infants and children, whom He calls "innocent" (Jeremiah 19:4). It doesn't mean they are perfect, just that He doesn't hold them guilty until they are old enough to understand/decide between right from wrong (Deuteronomy 1:39, Isaiah 7:16), to accept or reject Jesus as Lord and Savior. Before that time, God's grace covers them (and the mentally-handicapped who can never truly understand or make a conscious decision to trust Jesus as Lord and Savior).
In fact, the Bible also contradicts Calvinism's "total depravity" in Romans 2:14-16 (NIV, emphasis is mine): "Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them." This clearly says that we can - by nature - do the good things the law requires of us, that our consciences and thoughts guide us, convicting us or defending us. And we do this because God wrote the law on our hearts, on the hearts of sinful, fallen men. Where is the "total depravity" in that!?! That is the opposite of Calvinism's "total depravity"!
God Himself repeatedly contradicts Calvinism's idea of total depravity and wicked babies. I'm just sayin'.
[This is also covered in my posts "Do babies go to heaven if they die? A critique of Calvinism's answer" and "Things my Calvinist pastor said #3: Even Babies Are Wicked"]
#65: A small one: In 2 Peter 3:5, the KJV says "For this they willingly are ignorant of ..." But the ESV says "For they deliberately overlook this fact..." I can see how these are similar, but Calvinists don't believe that people can "will" anything on their own ... and so it's no wonder they take out the fact that people "willingly" decided to be ignorant of God's truth, replacing it with just the idea that they "deliberately overlooked" it - which, in Calvinism, would be because they were predestined to overlook it, that God caused them to overlook it, NOT because they themselves willingly chose it on their own.
#66: Along similar lines, since it has the same word for "willing," is Romans 9:16. The KJV says "So then it is not of him that willeth ..." But the ESV says "So then it depends not on human will..." Now this again seems like a small change that doesn't really matter, as if they are saying the same thing. But they are not. Not by a long shot.
In the KJV, "willing" is a verb, something done by the man. The man is doing the willing, deciding what to desire, what to resolve to do, to choose.
But since Calvinists do not believe man can "will" anything on his own, the ESV changes it to a noun, a thing, the "human will" which controls the man, removing the control the man has over doing the action of "willing." And God, in Calvinism, builds certain desires into the human will that people have to obey, thereby making Him the controller of what we decide.
And so which one is right? The KJV, of course, because according to the Greek, the word "willing" is a verb, not a noun. It's what we do; it's not a thing that controls us.
#67: And now we’ve come full circle, back to the verse that started it all: 1 Corinthians 7:37. But this time I want to look at another part of it, comparing the ESV to the KJV (now that I know the KJV is the one to go to, that it’s far, far more accurate than the ESV and many others).
Here is the KJV: “Nevertheless, he that standeth steadfast in his heart, having no necessity, but hath power over his own will …”
But here is the ESV: “But whoever is firmly established in his heart, being under no necessity but having his desire under control …”
In review (as I pointed out way at the beginning of this list), the ESV changes the idea of the man having power over himself (his own Will) to the idea that his desire is simply under control, as if passively, as if he himself has no control over it but that it’s just done for him/to him by God, similar to the difference between “I painted my house” and “I had my house painted.”
Anyway, after seeing the KJV, I wondered: Why change “Will” (KJV) to “desires” (ESV)? These are two different things. “Will” is about having the power of choice, to decide what you will do. "Desires" is about merely having feelings about what you want to do.
But the KJV clearly says that man has power over his Will, implying that man gets to control his decisions/actions, and since this clearly contradicts the Calvinist idea that God controls our Wills, it's no wonder why they had to get rid of this phrase.
But "having his desire under control"? Now that's something Calvinists can work with. Because as I already pointed out, this is passive: the man isn't necessarily even the one controlling or deciding his desires, but his desires are merely "under control." And this allows Calvinists to say that God is the one causing his desires to be under control, controlling his desires. Not the man.
You see, in Calvinism, we don't have power over our own Wills, but God controls our Wills by building into them certain desires that He wants us to follow, that we must follow. As Calvinists say, "We choose to do what we want to do, according to our nature/desires" - a very important caveat - meaning that God gives us the desires He wants us to carry out, even sinful ones, and since those are the only desires we have (and the only ones we can have because we can't change them), then we will inevitably obey those desires, doing what God predestined we would do all along, even sin against Him or reject Him. (And yet Calvinists still call this "choice," and they believe it's right and just for God to hold us responsible for these so-called "choices," even though that's all we could choose to do, by God's design and control).
And so "having his desire under control" fits their theology better than they KJV because it gets rid of the idea that man controls his Will. It makes it so that they can say that God controls our desires, and then our desires control us.
And on top of all that (a lot of significant changes in this little half-verse), notice also that the ESV takes away the power the man has over his own heart.
In the KJV, the man himself does the “standing steadfast in his heart,” but in the ESV, he is merely “firmly established,” which, like the passive “having his desire under control,” removes the fact that he himself actively decides/chooses to be steadfast, making it more about it just happening to him instead of him doing it himself.
It would be like the difference between “While climbing a mountain, I made my footing secure, to stand steadfast” and “My footing was firmly established, but not necessarily by me (maybe because someone else put my feet in cement or tied a rope to my feet or dropped me in a hole so that I couldn’t slip downhill or because a fairy waved her magic wand and turned me into a stone statue that couldn't move no matter what).”
In the KJV, we do it. But in the ESV, it just happens to us.
Also, the ESV changes "being under no necessity" to "having no necessity," which I think makes it a little more passive too, as if the man just passively ends up either having or not having necessity. We either have it or don't have it, based on what God gives us and causes us to do.
In this verse, in the KJV, the man puts no compulsion on himself to marry the woman (he finds no compelling need to do it), but he willingly chooses to. But in the ESV, the man simply, passively ends up being under no compulsion (without necessarily having any influence over it), which would mean, in Calvinism, that God is responsible for the man being in the condition he's in.
Put another way, in the KJV, the man is in charge over the "necessity," but in the ESV, the "necessity" is in charge over the man.
Tellingly, the Greek shows that the word is "having," as in to have, hold, possess (and the man is the one having or not having it). The word is not "under," as if the man is under its control.
It's a little thing, but it shows the constant alterations the ESV makes, in order to make it seem as if we are mere puppets on a string, under the control of the nature/desires that Calvi-god gave us, his predeterminations for us.
The KJV is about the man doing it, having control over himself and the power to make his decisions, but the ESV is about it all just happening to him, which fits nicely with Calvinism because then they can say that God determines/causes all that happens and all that we do.
These kinds of changes – where verses are changed from people having active control over their own Wills/decisions (KJV) to them just being passive recipients of things just happening to them [caused by Calvi-god, of course] – are all over the ESV, such as in these verses I already looked at: James 1:12 and 5:11, Romans 6:17, 2 Peter 2:14, and Revelation 22:17 (which also changes “will” to “desires”). And if I found this many without digging too deeply, I can only imagine how many there really are.
The ESV, and Calvinism itself, is determined to take away the Bible’s emphasis on man having a certain, God-given level of control over his own desires, Will, choices, and actions, making God the determiner/controller of all things, even our desires, choices, sins, and unbelief. (And they will answer to God someday for it, for changing His Word, His Gospel, for making Him the cause of sin, for blocking the door of heaven to most people, for making God untrustworthy, etc.)
If you trust the ESV, you are being lied to about the Word of God and being led astray from His Truth!
Consider yourself warned.
#68: (I simplified this one but made it longer in the process. Go figure.) This one is about the end times. In Revelation 5:9-10, the elders around the throne in heaven are singing about the people God has redeemed from the earth.
Time and time again, the KJV proves to be the more accurate translation. At least in my opinion.
#69, dudes! [Sorry, couldn't resist. And come on, you know it reminds you of Bill and Ted, too.]:
Here is the last half of Hebrews 4:2 in the KJV: "... but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it." This sounds like the people heard the Word but did not put any faith in it, and so therefore, the Word did not profit them. (Notice that the people "that heard it [the Word]" are the unbelievers who heard the Word but did not have faith in it.)
But the ESV says "... but the message they heard did not benefit them, because they were not united by faith with those who listened." To me, this is very different.
In the KJV, faith is what we do. After hearing the Word, we either choose to have faith in it or not. But in the ESV (in Calvinism), faith is like a big, heavenly rubber-band that wraps around certain, pre-chosen people and unites them together as believers.
[Notice in the ESV that "those who listened [to the Word]" are the believers - not the unbelievers, as in the KJV. And the unbelievers are not united with "those who listened" because that giant rubber-band called "faith" did not include them (Calvi-god did not give them faith). You see, Calvinists believe that only the elect can really "hear" the Word and that only those who really "hear" the Word - the elect - can and will believe, because Calvi-god makes them believe, because he predestined them to heaven. So it's no wonder that they would switch the verse from unbelievers (non-elect, according to Calvinists) hearing the Word to believers hearing/listening to the Word. Calvinists don't think the unbelieving non-elect can truly "hear" the Word. In fact, Calvi-god makes sure to blind their eyes and harden their hearts so that they cannot truly hear, understand, or respond to the Word. But if unbelievers could "hear" the Word, they would be in the same position as "the elect," able to respond to the Word, which would mean that they could choose to accept it, which would destroy the Calvinist idea that only the elect can hear and believe the Word because only they were predestined for salvation by Calvi-god. So it's no wonder this verse was changed in later, more-Calvinist translations.]
#70-72 (I'd love to get to #100, if I can. Or maybe just to #99, just to mess with people. 😀) In Hosea, I recently found 3 verses that downplay mankind's responsibility over his actions.
In the KJV, Hosea 5:4 says "They will not frame their doings to turn unto their God..."
But the ESV says "Their deeds do not permit them to return to their God..."
Notice, in the KJV, that the people have control over their deeds (doings). They WILL NOT do what they need to do to turn to God. But in the ESV, the deeds control the people. (These kinds of changes are all over the ESV.) Their deeds - which, in Calvinism, God preplans and causes, and nothing different could happen - prevent them from returning to God.
Here's Hosea 4:8 in the KJV: "They eat up the sin of my people, and they set their heart on their iniquity."
And in the ESV: "They feed on the sin of my people: they are greedy for their iniquity."
To "set their heart on [sin]" shows much more personal responsibility for their decision to sin than simply being greedy for it. In Calvinism, they could be greedy for sin because God set their heart on it (preplanned it/caused it by creating them to be non-elect and giving them the sin-nature that can only desire/choose to sin), but in the KJV, it's clear that the people themselves set their heart on sin. (Of course, Calvinists could simply add another layer to that and say "Yeah, it says the people set their heart on sin but that's because God predestined it." But it's even more Calvinist to simply take out the "they set their heart on" altogether.)
Now here's Hosea 7:6 in the KJV: "For they have made ready their heart [for sin] like an oven ..."
But the ESV says "For with hearts like an oven they approach their intrigue..."
Notice in the KJV, the people themselves make their hearts ready for sin. But in the ESV, their hearts are simply ready for sin, but not by them. And of course, in Calvinism, their hearts are made ready for sin by God's choice, decree, and control.
#73: (I got this one from the post The King James AV 1611 Bible vs. The English Standard Version, from Now The End Begins)
Here's Psalm 10:4 in the KJV: "The wicked, through the pride of his countenance, will not seek after God..."
And here's the ESV: "In the pride of his face the wicked does not seek after him..."
Once again, as we have repeatedly seen, in the KJV, the people themselves make decisions about God. In this verse, they WILL NOT seek after God. But in the ESV, they simply do not seek Him. And in Calvinism, the non-elect do not seek Him not because they themselves choose to reject Him but because God causes them to desire/decide to reject Him.
#74: I already mentioned this one, but I didn’t explain why it matters. The KJV quotes Luke 9:56 this way (Jesus’s words in bold): “‘For the Son of Man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them.’ And they went to another village.” But the ESV only says “And they went on to another village.” It (along with the other modern translations that are based on the same corrupted manuscripts) totally removed the fact that Jesus said He came to save men, not destroy them. And the thing is, He says this in reference to the Samaritans who did not receive Him, which would (by Calvinist standards) make them non-elect. And yet Jesus says He came not to destroy them but to save them. But if Calvinism is true, then Jesus came to save only the elect and to make sure the non-elect burned in hell for all eternity for His glory. How does that square with Jesus’s claim of coming to save those non-believers, not destroy them? No wonder a Calvinist Bible would get rid of this verse or make it a mere foot-note.
#75: In John 8, men wanted to stone a woman accused of adultery, but then Jesus said that whoever is without sin can cast the first stone. Here is the beginning of John 8:9 in the (KJV): “And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one …” But the ESV says “But when they heard it, they went away one by one.” The ESV takes out the idea that the men were convicted by their own conscience, removing the ability/responsibility of people to make decisions on their own, to evaluate right and wrong in their own minds, to be convicted of sin from their own conscience. This allows Calvinists to put it all on God, to say that God determines (predetermines!) whether we are convicted of our sins or not, whether we obey Him or not, whether we believe in Him or not, that mankind does not have the ability to do those things because it’s all up to God.
#76: Galatians 4:7 (KJV): “Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.” And the ESV: “So you are no longer a slave, but a son, and if a son, then an heir through God.” In the KJV, we are heirs of God, through Christ. Anyone who is “in Christ” - who puts their faith in Christ - becomes a child of God (Eph. 1:13, John 1:12, Gal. 3:26). But in the ESV, we are heirs through God, with no mention of Christ. To be merely an heir “through God” could mean, in Calvinism, that whoever believes (whoever is an heir) is determined by God, that it happens through God efforts and decisions, not through our own decision to put our faith in Christ.
#77: Ephesians 3:9 (KJV): “And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid by God, who created all things by Jesus Christ.” And the ESV: “and to bring to light for everyone what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things.”
In the KJV, notice that Paul is preaching the gospel of Christ (verse 8) in an effort to make all men see it. But in the ESV, he’s just bringing it to light, exposing it to everyone.
It's kinda like the difference between helping people put a puzzle together... or merely putting the box in front of them and saying, "See! There's a puzzle." The first is to help all people put the puzzle together correctly, to help them understand it, believing that everyone can do it with a little help... but the second is merely about putting the puzzle in front of them, pointing out the fact that it's there.
The KJV stresses that all men can see the gospel and that Paul is trying to help all men see it, but the ESV is merely about the gospel being presented to all but not necessarily about all men being able to see it or about helping all men see it. This fits perfectly with Calvinism which believes that God only gives the elect eyes to see the truth but that He blinds the minds/eyes of the non-elect because He predestined them to hell.
#78: This is not about Calvinism, but it’s significant nonetheless, to help show the corruption of the manuscripts the ESV (and other modern translations) is based on. Mark 10:24 (KJV): “Children, how hard it is for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God.” But in the ESV: “Children, how difficult it is to enter the kingdom of God!” How misleading! It's not hard to enter the kingdom of God. Jesus has done all the work for us, and all we have to do is accept it, to believe. But it is hard for those who trust in their riches to enter the kingdom of God because they put their faith in money, convinced that they don’t need anyone else, even Christ, because they can do it all on their own. I wonder who it is who wants to convince people that it's too hard to get saved? Because it’s sure not God!
#79: Another not-Calvinist-but-significant one: Luke 4:4 (KJV): “Then Jesus answered him saying, ‘It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.” And the ESV: “And Jesus answered him, ‘It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone.’’” Well, duh, of course we can’t live by bread alone. That is just a fact. But why remove the whole point of this verse, that man shall live not just by bread but by “every word of God”? Who is the one who wants people to be unaware of their need for the Word of God? Who is the one who loves to whisper “Did God really say…?” Because it’s sure not God!
#80: In 1 Peter 1:14, the KJV warns "As obedient children, not fashioning yourselves according to the former lusts in your ignorance,". Notice that it emphasizes that people fashion themselves to their former lusts. The people are responsible for choosing to mold their lives around their lusts or not. But the ESV simply says "As obedient children, do not be conformed to the passions of your former ignorance."
I know it seems small, but the ESV removes the clear statement that they fashion themselves, downplaying the idea that we are responsible for deciding what to fashion ourselves after. According to Calvinism, God decides what we will be like, and He fashions us to be a certain way, and there's nothing we can do about it (yet they will talk like they think we can actually make decisions and choices, while hiding their belief that we can't). But the KJV clearly says that we fashion ourselves to be a certain way, contradicting Calvinism.
I am not sure if I covered these next two already, but ...
#81: Notice the difference between the NIV (not the ESV this time) and the KJV versions of Ephesians 1:11:
NIV: “In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will..."
KJV: “In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will…”
In the NIV, being “chosen” was predestined – very Calvinist! - but in the KJV, a believer’s “inheritance” is what was predestined. Big difference.
#82: 1 Thessalonians 1:2-5: In ESV, NIV, etc., verse 4 is tied to verse 5, being “chosen” is related to the gospel coming in power, as if Paul is saying that he knows they are chosen/elected/saved because the gospel came to them in power and in the Holy Spirit (and of course, it would not come to the non-elect that way because they cannot "hear" the gospel or respond), which can sound like a very Calvinist thing.
ESV verses 2-5: “We give thanks to God always for all of you, constantly mentioning you in our prayers, remembering before our God and Father your work of faith and labor of love and steadfastness of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ. For we know, brothers loved by God, that he has chosen you, because our gospel came to you not only in words but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction…”
But the KJV has different punctuation which gives a completely different meaning to it.
KJV verses 2-5: “We give thanks to God always for you all, making mention of you in our prayers; Remembering without ceasing your work of faith, and labour of love, and patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ, in the sight of God and our Father; Knowing, brethren beloved, your election of God. For our gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance…”
What a difference it makes when you shift punctuation marks around!
Verse 4 should be the end of verses 2-3 (a footnote to them), not the beginning of verse 5. Paul is not speaking like a Calvinist here, not saying that they were individually and specifically “chosen” by God to be saved, evidenced by the gospel coming to them in power and the Holy Spirit. He is saying that, knowing they are true followers of Jesus (part of the “elect” group because they chose to believe in Jesus), he can see (and thanks God for) how well they are living out their faith. And then he goes on to stress that he shared the gospel with them in power and in the Holy Spirit and with much assurance, and that he lived it out among them, as examples to them. Making verse 4 the beginning of verse 5 (as most modern translations do) is wrong, and it leads to Calvinism. But like the KJV shows, it belongs at the end of verses 2-3.
#83-85 I’ve looked before at how the ESV changes the verb “believe” to the noun “believers” and how it changes “them that do not believe (refusing to be persuaded)” to the noun “unbelievers,” making it less about what you choose and more about who you are (who you are born to be, in Calvinism).
Well, I’ve found similar changes where the adjective “unbelieving” (describing those who refuse to believe the gospel – “them that believe not,” in the KJV) is changed to the noun “unbelievers.” (There are more I am not listing, including a couple where even the KJV words it as “unbelievers”.)
I know this doesn’t seem like a big deal, but it allows Calvinists to say that you are what you are because God made you that way (an unbeliever) instead of it being that we have control/choice over what we believe or don’t believe.
But we are not “believers” or “unbelievers” by God’s design, locked into something God “predestined” us to be. We are people who decide to either believe or not believe the truth, to accept or refuse it.
1 Corinthians 10:27 in the KJV: “If any of them that believe not …”.
But in the ESV: “If one of the unbelievers …”
1 Corinthians 14:22 in the KJV: “Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not; but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.”
But in the ESV: “Thus tongues are a sign not for believers but for unbelievers, while prophecy is a sign not for unbelievers but for believers.”
2 Corinthians 4:4 in the KJV: “… the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not.” (The people choose to not believe, and then Satan blinds them.)
But in the ESV: “… the god of this world has blinded the minds of unbelievers …” (But in this case, Calvinists could say that God created them to be unbelievers and that because they were created to be unbelievers, Satan blinds them, forcing them to not see the truth.)
It’s not that God created/caused them to be unbelievers. It’s that they were people who chose to not believe the truth, to refuse to be persuaded by it.
These are subtle changes (changing adjectives/verbs to nouns), but they become more and more significant when it happens all over the Bible, especially by Calvinists who have an agenda behind their word choices, a particular theology they are trying to push, trying to convince people that you either are or are not a believer by God’s design, instead of it being about you choosing to either believe or reject the truth.
#86: I recently asked a Calvinist if he thought the first “all men” in Romans 5:18 was “every individual,” but if the second “all men” was “the elect only.” And how could he change the definition of “all” mid-verse? Because I think that when the Bible says Jesus’s death bought eternal life/justification for all men, it means ALL MEN (all people), and that we choose to accept or reject it.
He quoted the ESV, Romans 5:17-18: “For if, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ. Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.”
And then he tried to tell me, basically, that verse 17 specifies that “life” is only for those who receive grace/righteousness – the elect. (By “receive” Calvinists mean God injected it into the person, that the person passively acquired it.) This would mean then, he says, that the “justification and life” in verse 18 is also meant only for the elect, that it was never available to the non-elect. Therefore, the second “all men” really does mean “just the elect,’ while the first “all men” means “all men”.
I then quoted the KJV: “For if by one man’s offense death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.”
Notice that the proper term is the KJV’s “unto justification of life,” not the ESV’s “justification and life.” And furthermore, it's the "free gift" of justification leading to life that came upon all men, a gift which must be accepted to be acquired.
And did you notice something else? Something in the KJV that's not in the ESV?
In the KJV, there is a "closed parentheses" before verse 18. Verse 18 is not a continuation of verse 17, as the ESV makes it seem. The "therefore" in verse 18 is not referring to verse 17, but to verse 12 in the King James, before the parenthetical verses: "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:"
And notice that nowhere does it say that justification and life were only made available to “the elect.”
[The presupposition Calvinists start out with is that if Jesus really did die for all men, then all men would be saved. And so, since all men are clearly not saved, it must mean that eternal life was never offered to them, instead of that it was offered but they rejected it. And then when we non-Calvinists say that Jesus died for all men, they accuse us of being Universalists, of saying that all men will be saved. Because to them, if Jesus died for you, you WILL BE saved. They cannot and do not believe that man has the real ability to decide to accept or reject something. This is a fundamental error that affects the rest of their theology. They can't see anything past their presuppositions.]
The way I read it, in the KJV and in light of the rest of Scripture, is that Jesus’s death paid for all men’s sins, which bestows the free gift of eternal life on all men, the ability to receive “justification of life” (verse 18), but that only those who receive this free gift will get that eternal life (verse 17). The gift of salvation, of eternal life, is available to all, but only those who accept it will get it.
This is why we read in verses such as Romans 5:19 that "so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous." Calvinists would say that because only "many" - not "all" - are made righteous, it means that salvation was only for "the many" (the elect). But I believe it says only "many" will be made righteous because only "many" - not all - will accept the gift of eternal life that God offers to all. The rest of the people choose to reject it. And so while salvation is offered to all, only those who accept it will receive it and be made righteous.
[Also note that “receive” in the Greek is active, not passive. It means that the person reaches out and actively takes ahold of what is offered to them. It does not mean that God injects it into those He pre-picked and that they did nothing to get it but sit there and let God give them faith and make them saved. It is up to us to reach out and grab ahold of the gift of eternal life that God offers to all men.]
#87: Exodus 32:29 (KJV): "For Moses had said, 'Consecrate yourselves to day to the Lord ..."
But in the ESV and some others: "And Moses said, 'Today you have been ordained for the service of the Lord."
In the KJV, the people do it themselves, but in the ESV it's done to them. Subtle difference, but it might be significant, especially since these kinds of changes/differences are all over the ESV.
[And here's an interesting difference, unrelated to Calvinism:
Exodus 32:25 in the KJV: "And when Moses saw that the people were naked; (for Aaron had made them naked unto their shame among their enemies:)".
And here's the ESV: "And when Moses saw that the people had broken loose (for Aaron had let them break loose, to the derision of their enemies),"
I don't really have anything to say about it, just thought it was interesting that the KJV's "naked" was changed to "break loose" in the ESV.]
#88: Okay now, this one is gonna be different because I am actually calling out an error in the KJV, whereas the ESV gets it more right. This time.
Calvinists and non-Calvinists debate who hardened Pharoah's heart first: Did God predetermine to harden Pharoah's heart from the beginning, before the first plague in Egypt (the Calvinist view) ... or did Pharoah choose to harden his own heart in the first several plagues and then God confirmed/strengthened his choice by further hardening his heart in the later plagues (the non-Calvinist view)?
I read it the non-Calvinist way. I believe that when God tells Moses that He WILL harden Pharoah's heart (Exodus 4:21, 7:3), He means NOT that He hardened it now but that He WILL harden it in the later plagues after Pharoah first chose to harden his own heart in the earlier ones. (And God can predict this because He already foreknows what will happen. However, be aware that Calvinists redefine "foreknows" as "foreplanned and then causes.")
However, Calvinists think that Exodus 4:21, 7:3 means God hardened Pharoah's heart right then, before the plagues, meaning that Pharaoh didn't have a choice, that God caused him to refuse to let the people go after commanding him to let the people go. And then God punishes him for not letting the people go, even though Pharoah had no control over his choice and was just doing what God caused him to do, according to Calvinism.
Unfortunately, the KJV seems to confirm the Calvinist view in Exodus 7:13 when, at the beginning of the plagues, it says "And he hardened Pharoah's heart...," making it sound like God hardened Pharoah's heart at the beginning.
However, looking into it deeper, it seems as though this is a mistranslation. Apparently, it should read more like "And Pharoah's heart was hardened" or "And Pharoah hardened his heart." See the translation of the Hebrew into English by clicking here ("And grew hard heart of Pharoah") and see various commentaries on the proper translation of this verse by clicking here, which includes comments like these:
From Ellicot’s Commentary for English Readers: “He hardened Pharaoh’s heart” is “a mis-translation. The verb is intransitive, and 'Pharaoh’s heart' is its nominative case. Translate, 'Pharaoh’s heart hardened itself.' It is essential to the idea of a final penal hardening that in the earlier stages Pharaoh should have been left to himself.”
From Benson Commentary: “And he hardened Pharaoh’s heart — That is, permitted it to be hardened: or, as the very same Hebrew word is rendered in Exodus 7:22, Pharaoh’s heart was hardened.”
From Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges: “… In this case, the meaning will be that God ‘hardened’ Pharaoh just in so far as he hardened himself… He only hardens those who begin by hardening themselves … it would be contrary to His moral attributes, and inconsistent with the character of a righteous God, if He were to harden those whose hearts were turned towards Him, and did not wish to harden themselves. The Pharaoh—whatever he was in actual history—is depicted in Exodus as from the first a self-willed, obstinate man who persistently hardens himself against God, and resists all warnings: God thus hardens him only because he has first hardened himself.”
From Pulpit Commentary: "'And he hardened Pharaoh’s heart.' Rather, 'But Pharaoh’s heart was hard.' The verb employed is not active, but neuter; and 'his heart' is not the accusative, but the nominative. Pharaoh’s heart was too hard for the sign to make much impression on it.”
Interestingly, the ESV is closer to the proper translation when it says "Still Pharoah's heart was hardened..." Whereas the KJV is more wrong and more Calvinist. This doesn't happen often, but it did here. And it deserves to be highlighted because Pharaoh's story (his hardened heart) is a big part of the debate between Calvinists and non-Calvinists.
#89: Romans 8:2 in the KJV: "For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death."
Now in the ESV: "For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death."
Do you notice what's different about these?
In the King James, it's "the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus", but in the ESV it's "the Spirit of life ... in Christ Jesus." Life is tied to Christ Jesus in the KJV, but it's tied to the Spirit in the ESV.
Does this matter? I think so. I think it's a subtle but significant difference to separate the "Spirit of life" from "in Christ Jesus."
To keep it together - "the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus" - is to say that life is found in Christ Jesus, that we get eternal life through our faith in Him, by believing in Him, as clearly taught in the Bible (whoever believes will be saved).
But to separate out the "Spirit of life" as its own thing is to make it an entity unto itself, as if the "Spirit of life" - whether or not the Spirit makes you alive or not - is what determines if you are saved or not. And of course, only the elect will get the "Spirit of life," and so only the elect will be set free, in Christ Jesus, from sin and death.
Maybe you won't agree, but I think it's a subtle difference that matters. Is it "life in Christ Jesus (believing in Jesus) sets you free" ... or is it "The Spirit of life sets you (the elect) free"?
#90: (I don't think I did this one yet) Romans 10:10: (KJV): "For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." This is saying that believing/confession is a prerequisite for - they come before and lead to - righteousness/salvation.
But here is the ESV (and many other translations get this wrong too): "For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved." Notice that "unto" is replaced with "and," removing the idea that believing/confessing have to come before (that they lead to) salvation. "And" makes it possible for them to happen in any order or concurrently.
It's like the difference between saying "I got a lottery ticket which led to getting $1,000" (KJV) and "I got a lottery ticket and $1,000" (ESV). Or "I went to the gas station, then the concert" (KJV) and "I went to the gas station and the concert" (ESV). The KJV is in a specified order for a reason, but the ESV does not make it clear that it has to happen in that order or that the first one leads to the second one.
This (saying "believes and is justified/confesses and is saved") allows for the Calvinist idea that the elect are already saved before time began, that their predestined salvation leads to them eventually believing/confession - instead of it being that belief/confession leads to being saved, as the KJV says.
Notice that in the Greek, it's unto, not and. And "unto" is a preposition, which specifies a relationship between two things, direction, how one affects the other. And nowhere in the definition of "unto" or its usage in the Bible does it mean merely "and," which would be just a conjunction, just joining words but in no particular order and with no specification of how one affects the other. "Unto" is meant to specify that the first one (belief/confession) leads to the second one (righteousness/salvation). "And" just means they both happened.
In Calvinism, salvation leads to belief, but in the Bible, belief leads to salvation. As famous Calvinist Loraine Boettner wrote (in The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination), "A man is not saved because he believes in Christ; he believes in Christ because he is saved."
"And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit." (Ephesians 1:13. Believe first... then get included in Christ, saved, sealed by the Holy Spirit.)
So what do you think? Is Calvinism true to God's Word? Or is it just another version of "Did God really say...?"
#91: John 8:44 in the KJV: "Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do..."
And now in the ESV: "You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires."
The ESV is one of the few translations to add in the idea of your Will (as a noun) carrying out Satan's desires. But in the Greek text analysis, there is no mention of a "Will" (noun) wanting to do anything. It just essentially says that those of the devil will do what the devil likes.
Why the addition of "your will is to do"?
I've covered this before in other changes the ESV makes just like this, but the simple answer is this:
Because Calvinists believe that our Wills control/determine what we "want" to do, which controls/determines what we "choose" to do.
In Calvinism, we get - by God's predestination - either the Will of the elect (regenerated) or of the non-elect (unregenerated). God implants both of these Wills with certain desires (the desire to do what He predestined us to do), and we cannot change or resist those desires. We absolutely must follow them.
And so if you are non-elect, God gives you the Will that is filled with the desire to sin, do evil, and reject Him. And so since that's all your Will can desire to do, that's all you can choose to do. Your Will controls you, and you cannot change your Will.
The KJV just says that evil people will do evil things. But to make sure that we don't think this is really a choice or that we could choose to do something different, the ESV adds in the idea of our Wills controlling us, making it much more Calvinistic.
#92: Okay, this is totally a small thing, so I won't make a big deal out of it, but I thought I'd point it out because it's thought-provoking:
John 10 talks about Jesus being the shepherd and how the sheep will not follow a stranger.
And John 10:12 in the KJV says "But he that is an hireling, and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not..."
But here is the ESV: "He who is a hired hand and not a shepherd, who does not own the sheep..."
Do you see the difference I see?
In the KJV, "own" is an adjective. It's saying the sheep are not the sheep of a stranger but are Jesus's own sheep. An adjective.
But in the ESV (and others), "own" is a verb, as in the stranger does not own the sheep, but Jesus does. Jesus owns the sheep. A verb.
I know it's not a big thing, but it still carries different connotations, doesn't it?
It's the difference between a man saying "I have my own wife and kids" and a man saying "I own my wife and kids."
It's a subtle difference, but as a verb it can be used to support a more Calvinistic view of sovereignty and election. (And if I just stumbled across this change, it makes me wonder how many more there are like this that I haven't found.)
And FYI, in the Greek, it's an adjective, not a verb. The KJV is correct, as usual.
#93: This isn't really about a Calvinist change in the ESV, but it's about the difference between the manuscripts the KJV is translated from and the manuscripts the more current versions are translated from, including the ESV.
Most versions translate Matthew 5:22 similar to the ESV: "But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment..."
But the KJV, which is based on different manuscripts, is one of the only ones to add "without a cause": "But I say unto you, that whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment..."
This difference matters for a few reasons.
Simply saying that it's wrong to be angry with another person is stricter and more condemning than saying it's wrong to be unfairly angry with someone for no reason. The stricter version makes something a sin that isn't really a sin.
And if someone thinks it's a sin to be angry with others for any reason at all, they might be too lenient towards sin, injustice, immorality, and unrighteousness. They'll be afraid of being angry with things we should be justly and righteously angry about, things we should hold others accountable for. Ultimately and ironically, the stricter version might create more tolerance of sin.
But worse than that, consider the consequence of the stricter version when it's applied to Mark 3:1-5. In this passage, Jesus asks the Pharisees if it's right for Him to heal a man on the Sabbath, but they were silent. And so He "looked around at them with anger." Jesus was angry with the Pharisees. (And He was also clearly angry when He cleared the Temple of the moneychangers in John 2.) Leaving out "without a cause" - as the ESV and others does (but not the KJV) - essentially makes Jesus a sinner who's liable to judgment.
Once again, I think the KJV proves it's the more reliable translation, that it's based on the more accurate manuscripts. It's not perfect, of course, because no translation is perfect. But it's more accurate and reliable than the other translations and doesn't damage God's Word the way the others do. But this is just my opinion.
#94-97: (Thanks to Brian Wagner for sharing these in the comment section of Soteriology 101's post Calvinism Obscures the Simple Gospel, near the end.)
94: John 1:9 in the KJV: "That was the true light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world." But in the ESV, it's "The true light, which gives light to everyone, was coming into the world."
Who's "coming into the world": people or the Light (Jesus)?
While I think both could be argued for and that this is a subtle and maybe insignificant distinction, it seems to me that the KJV is more specific that every individual person born has been "lit" and so, therefore, we all can and should see the truth of Jesus.
However, the ESV makes it sound more like Jesus just came into the world as a general light in the midst of all people but not every individual person can see it because not every individual person has been "lit". To me, the ESV's version more easily supports the idea of Calvinism's election, that God only "lights" the elect, giving only them the eyes to see the truth.
This becomes an issue of who's responsible for whether or not we believe. In the KJV, all have been "lit" and so all can see the truth, and so if we don't see it, it's our fault because we refuse to see it. But in the ESV, if we don't see the truth, it's because we can't see the truth because God didn't light our hearts.
95: Isaiah 48:8 in the KJV: "... and wast called a transgressor from the womb." But in the ESV: "... and that from before birth you were called a rebel." The KJV seems to say that from the moment they (the house of Jacob) were born, these people were rebels. But the ESV seems to say that they were rebels from before birth.
Once again, this is an issue of who's responsible. If they were "born" first, then they were capable of making decisions which means they chose to be rebellious. But if they were called rebels before they were even born - before they even existed or could make any choices - then God is responsible for it, as if He predestined them to be that way.
[Wagner points out that the ESV translated the same word in Is. 44:2, 44:24, 46:3 (last part), 49:1, and 49:5 as just "from the womb," with no addition of "before" as it did in 48:8. So the ESV translators clearly know the proper definition, yet they chose to add "before" to 48:8 anyway. Interesting! Suspicious!]
96: Isaiah 46:3 in the KJV (not from Wagner's list): "Hearken unto me, O house of Jacob... which are borne by me from the belly..." But in the ESV: "Listen to me, O house of Jacob... who have been borne by me from before your birth..."
Once again, the ESV adds the idea of "before" they were ever born, making it sound like God carried/sustained them before they even existed.
But the Hebrew makes it sound like these people have been upheld by God from the moment of their birth, that God sustained these people from their beginning, making the KJV more accurate and more sensical.
It might be small and subtle, but changes like these "befores" play into the Calvinist idea of predestination, that God preplans, causes, controls how everything goes and that everything happens just as He preplanned from the beginning.
97: Jeremiah 19:5 (about child sacrifice) in the KJV: "... which I commanded not, nor spake it, neither came it into my mind..." But in the ESV: "... which I did not command or decree, nor did it come into my mind..."
Oddly, the ESV is one of the only ones to say "decree" instead of "speak," that God did not "decree" child sacrifice. I only point this out because the ESV, which is a Calvinist Bible extraordinaire, shoots itself in the foot here. In Calvinism, God decrees everything that happens and everything that happens is because He decreed it, and so we couldn't do something unless He decreed it. And yet here, the ESV is saying that God never decreed child sacrifice and yet the people were doing it anyway. This is Calvinism contradicting Calvinism in one verse.
(My whole purpose in writing this blog the way I do, in detail, is not just to tell you that I think Calvinism is bad, but to help you learn to identify for yourself how it goes wrong, where it goes wrong, what the Bible really says, how Calvinism uses manipulation to get you to agree with it, etc. I want to help you to see it for yourself, research it for yourself, evaluate it for yourself, not just tell you what I think about it.)
Why? And why would translators of a Bible make these kinds of Calvinist tweaks to Scripture?
Wayne Grudem and J.I. Packer were editors on the ESV Study Bible (this is for the ESV Global Study Bible). Grudem and Packer are both popular, strong, dogmatic Calvinists. Very Big Names in the world of Calvinism. Grudem in the General Editor and Packer is the Theological Editor. And there were other Calvinist contributors and committee members for this Bible and its study notes, such as and at least Schreiner, Ortlund, and Poythress. And I suspect that Collins and Dennis are Calvinists too, based on the Calvinists they run/write with and the people online who identify their books as "reformed."
Also, regarding the ESV itself (not the Study Bible), several Calvinists worked on the translation oversight committee, at least and from what I can tell, Packer, Grudem, Hughes, Poythress, Ryken (and once again, possibly Collins and Dennis. And I am quite sure that Arnold is too, based on the Statement of Faith of the school he worked at.).
Plus, if you look at the reviews for the ESV, there are many Calvinists who give it a glowing review - at least and from what I can tell, Piper, Sproul, Chandler, Mohler, Platt, Anyabwile, DeYoung, Chappell, Schreiner, Lutzer, etc.
This is telling.
I'm not saying the ESV itself, apart from the Study Bible, is an altogether bad translation, just that many Calvinists worked on it, many sing its praises, many hold it up over all the other translations, and a bunch of verses have been changed to be more Calvinistic. (This, to me, makes it unreliable.) So be discerning.
So there you have it: Calvinists helped translate the ESV Bible ... and then Calvinists added the study notes for the ESV Study Bible ... and then Calvinists hold it up as the best version and only version they will use.
No wonder Calvinists love it so much!
These articles about the ESV Bible might interest you:
ESV Bible Translation Revisions "Potentially Dangerous," Biblical Scholar Warns
[If you really want to get into the nitty-gritty, read these articles about the men who wrote the Greek texts that the ESV is based on: "Westcott and Hort: Translator's Beliefs" and "Westcott and Hort and the Greek Text." The ESV is based on the RSV, which is based on the Greek Texts of these two men (who, it sounds like, rejected the infallibility of Scripture, despised evangelicals, questioned Jesus's divinity and an eternal hell, did not take Genesis or the creation story literally, affirmed Darwin and evolution, etc.), which is based on two corrupted manuscripts which differ from the majority of the more reliable manuscripts that the KJV is based on.
So when something says that the ESV has only made 6%
changes, it means "from the RSV," meaning that it's 94% the same as
the RSV it was based on, a translation which was based on two corrupted
manuscripts that disagree with the majority of the manuscripts available.
It would be like if a journalist interviewed 100 people about
an event ... and 95 of them said the exact same thing, but 5 told a different
story ... and the journalist decided to side with the 5 and print their story as
fact. Raises some red flags, doesn't it?
And for more about the "complementarianism" of Calvinist churches, see:
Calvinism and Complementarianism: A Response to Kevin DeYoung
The Actual 4 Dangers of Complementarianism: A Response to the Gospel Coalition
Is there a Calvinist-Complementarian Connection?
