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.
#17: 1 Peter 1:3 in most versions says either that God “gave us new birth into a living hope” or that He “begotten us again into a lively hope.” But the ESV is one of the only ones to say “caused us to be born again to a living hope.” It’s one thing to “give” someone something but it’s another to “cause” them to do something. And to “cause” someone to “be born again” is very much a Calvinist concept. (However, this verse is about God regenerating believers, about believers – those who choose to put their faith in Jesus - being born into a “living hope.” It’s not about God regenerating non-believers, forcing them to be born again, or about Him causing certain pre-selected people to be born into eternal life. It’s about the promise of hope for believers, not about salvation being forced on pre-selected unbelievers.)
#18: Romans 10:10 (I found this one in this post) is worded this way in the KJV: “For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.” This is basically saying that believing leads to righteousness, confession leads to salvation. Believe in order to be saved. But the ESV says “For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.” This seems like a small distinction, but it’s not. Worded this way makes it sounds not like believing leads to salvation, but that they happen simultaneously, as if believing is the same as being justified and as if confessing is the same as being saved. This would fit the Calvinist idea that belief does not precede salvation. In Calvinism, you are “chosen for salvation” first, then the Holy Spirit wakes up (enters) the chosen ones, then they believe. In Calvinism, belief does not lead to salvation, but believing happens because the elect are already saved (chosen for salvation by God from before time began). But the KJV words it in such a way that belief comes before being saved, belief leads to being saved. Big difference!
#19: Romans 13:2: Most versions say that the person who rebels against authority will bring judgment “to/upon themselves,” clearly emphasizing that the person is responsible for their actions and for inviting the consequences. However, the ESV is one of the few that leaves off “to/upon themselves,” simply saying that they will “incur judgment.” This falls in line with Calvinism, that the person will be judged for their behavior even though they didn’t (had no ability to) bring it on themselves. Because in Calvinism, God is the one who controls what we do and so, therefore, no person can really be said to bring anything on themselves.
#20: Psalm 54:6: Most versions emphasize that David willingly/freely offered sacrifices to God, such as the KJV “I will freely sacrifice unto thee.” The action of sacrificing is what David is doing freely, voluntarily. But the ESV says “With a freewill offering I will sacrifice to you.” This makes it sound like it's the title of the offering, a "freewill offering," but does not necessarily emphasize the fact the David gave it voluntarily, freely. This word "freely" is a noun in the original language, but it's meant to emphasize the voluntariness of what's being done, of the offering, which the ESV fails to do compared to the KJV. In the Biblehub link for the word "freely", I believe this verse is incorrectly referenced as Psalm 54:8. Since there is no Psalm 54:8, they must mean Psalm 54:6. And in that link, it says the word freely is about "voluntariness" (like an adverb). David voluntarily offered his sacrifices. But since Calvinists do not think people can choose to do anything "voluntarily" (which would imply that we have a real choice), then it makes sense that they'd prefer to call it a "freewill offering," as though it's a title and not a comment about how David sacrificed voluntarily, on his own. (Their idea of “freely choosing what we want to do” is that God causes us to desire to do certain things and then we “decide” to "freely" do them, as if we had a choice. However, in Calvinism, we have no ability to resist, no ability to refuse to do what Calvi-god causes us to want to do or to do anything differently. And that’s not a choice at all!)
#21: Genesis 2:16: In almost every version, it says that Adam and Eve can “freely” eat from the trees in the garden, all but the forbidden one. But the ESV is the only one to say “surely.” Why? (We know 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.
