The Calvinist ESV: John 7:17 and Galatians 5:17

 I am breaking the "A Random Verse That Destroys Calvinism (And 'Is the ESV a Calvinist Bible'?)" post up into shorter segments so that each verse (or two) gets it own post.      

#4:  John 7:17 (NIV): "Anyone who chooses to do the will of God ..."

(KJV): "If any man will do his will ..."

(Berean Study Bible): "If any man desires to do his will ..."

(CSB): "If anyone wants to do his will ..."

What do all these have in common: "chooses ... will do ... desires to ... wants to ..."?

They are verbs, something we do.  They all show that the man himself is choosing to do God's Will, wanting to do His Will.  It puts the "choosing/wanting" in man's hands, as though it is his choice to do it.  And rightly so.

But here it is in the ESV: "If anyone's will is to do God's will ..."

While this seems insignificant, it's not.  This is huge, making it totally and completely Calvinistic.  Because in this translation (and only in this translation), it changes it from a verb to a noun, from man doing what he wills to man's Will controlling him.  So in the ESV, it's not that the man is choosing/wanting to do God's Will, but it's that man's Will is what determines if he wants to do and will do God's Will.

And why is this more Calvinistic?

Because according to Calvinism, God gives us the Will (the nature) that He wants us to have.  And whatever Will/nature He gives us comes with certain desires that we have to follow, that determine what we want to do and choose to do.  And we cannot change our Will/nature.  And so we cannot do anything or want to do anything outside of the desires of the Will/nature that God gives us.  

So if God gave you the "unregenerated-sinner nature" that He gives to all the non-elect, it comes only with the desire to sin.  And so your Will (given to you by God and unchangeable) will cause you to only want to sin and only choose to sin.  

But if God gave you the "regenerated nature" which He gives only to the elect, then your nature (your Will) will cause you to want to obey Him.  

Essentially, in Calvinism, you don't decide what you want to do.  Your nature (given to you by God) determines what your Will will be, which determines what you will want to do and choose to do.  And you cannot change it.  

Think of it like a "magic potion."  God gives the elected people a "love potion" that makes them "want" to love Him and obey Him, and so they can only choose to love Him and obey Him.  But God gives the non-elected people a "hate potion" which makes them want to hate God and to sin, and ONLY want to hate God and to sin.  And so they can only choose to hate Him and to sin because God didn't give them the desires to do anything else.  

You can only make the "choices" that go with the desires of the potion (the nature/Will) God gave you.  

(How in the world can they call that a "choice"!?!)

So in the ESV, and contrary to other translations, this verse is not saying that you desire/want/choose to do God's Will (which would mean that you can choose between options, change your mind, etc.), but that your Will (which you have no control over, which comes with pre-determined desires, and which you can't change) determines if you will do God's Will.  And only the elect will be given the Will/nature that wants to do God's Will.  

Basically, the ESV is saying "If you got the regenerated nature/Will (that the elect get) then you will want to do God's Will..."

So this verse, in the ESV, is a verse only for the elect, for those who got the "regenerated nature/Will" that causes them to want to do God's Will.  The unregenerated non-elect people can never want to do God's Will because they were given the nature/Will that can only want to and choose to sin. 

Do you see the difference?  Because it's a big one.

(You know how we can know for sure the ESV is WRONG?  The Greek word for "desires" in the phrase "if any man desires/chooses/wants/will do" is a verb.  But the ESV shamelessly changes it to a noun, the "will" of a person.)

#5:  And the ESV's Galatians 5:17 is along similar lines, worded in a way that supports the Calvinist's view that our desires are pre-set for us, according to whatever nature God gave us:  "For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh..."

All other versions word it something like this: "The flesh desires what's against the Spirit..."  But the ESV changes it to "the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit."  

In all other versions, and according to the concordance, "desire" is a verb, something you do.  It's that you - your fleshly-side - desire to do the things that are opposite what the Spirit desires, which would mean that you can choose to overcome the fleshly desires, that you can choose to obey the Spirit instead.  

But once again, the Calvinist ESV inexcusably changes it to a noun, saying that "the desires of your flesh" control you.  (If you read the ESV, know that you are being lied to.)  And in Calvinism, the "desires of your flesh" are predetermined for you by God, based on the nature He gives you.  And if you get the "unregenerated nature," your desire will be to sin, to always be against the Spirit.  You will be a slave to the "desires of your flesh," unable to choose anything that the Spirit wants you to choose.  Unable to choose to change your nature, the "desires of your flesh."  And this goes along with Calvinism's idea that God has to first regenerate the elected ones with the Holy Spirit before they can want to do good, seek God, obey God, etc.  

If you control your desires, then you can change your desires and pick what you want.  But if your God-given "desires" control you, then He causes you to desire what you want, and you can only do what God causes you to desire to do.

(When you see a version that bends over backwards to alter a verse, ask yourself "Why?")

A note about the ESV vs King James:

            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 believe Genesis and the creation story was literal, 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?

            In the course of researching this issue, and after not knowing for decades what to think of the whole "which translation is most accurate" debate, I now side with the King James.  I mean, I have several other translations, and I think different ones are good for different reasons, such as readability, compare and contrast, to hear God's Word in a fresh way, etc.  But when having to decide which one is more reliable and accurate, especially considering the significant differences like those above, I have to side with the KJV (not the New King James, just the King James).  And I've never been more sure of it than now, after all this research.