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, or ten) gets it own post.
FYI: I have posts scheduled up till the end of the year, and then after that I will be taking a long break from writing. Maybe permanently. I need it.
#25-33: I found the following verses in this post (be careful, though, because “Presbyterian” is generally code for "Calvinist," which makes me even more impressed that they would write so strongly against the ESV). It’s very long and very in-depth (and I’ll have to read it again more slowly to understand what I couldn’t grasp the first time around), but I am putting this all here for your consideration as you contemplate the validity of the ESV. (FYI: There are other translations that do the same thing the ESV does with these verses, based on what manuscripts they use for their translations. And I will leave it up to you to study for yourselves which is the most reliable and faithful to the truth. But I am only comparing the ESV to the KJV right now. And these don’t necessarily relate to Calvinism, per se; I just found them intriguing and a bit concerning.):
1 John 4:3 in the KJV: “And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not from God.” And in the ESV: “and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God.” Why take out “Christ” and “is come in the flesh”? Most people, non-believers, will admit that Jesus lived, that He was real. But they will deny that Jesus “Christ” lived – that Jesus was the Christ, that He was God in the flesh. To “not confess Jesus” is far different than “not confessing that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh.”
In John 3:16, the KJV says “he gave his only begotten Son,” but the ESV says “he gave his only Son.” In Greek, “begotten” means “unique, one of a kind, only.” But keep in mind that there are others in the Bible who are called “sons” of God (Adam in Luke 3:38, angels in Job 1:6, Christians in Philippians 2:15), so it isn’t accurate to call Jesus God’s “only” Son. And simply saying “only Son” does not emphasize Jesus’s uniqueness among these other “sons.” But to say “only begotten Son” sets Jesus apart from all these other sons; He is the only “unique, one of a kind” Son. This emphasizes His divine nature, which makes Him different than any other “son” of God. If you take out “begotten,” you reduce Jesus’s divinity and contradict the other passages that call other people “sons of God.”
1 John 5:7 (KJV): “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.” And in the ESV: “For there are three that testify” and that’s it, no mention of the Trinity. Why?
Galatians 3:1 (KJV): “Oh foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth…?” And in the ESV: “O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you?” This seems like a pretty significant thing to leave out. It’s not just that they were “bewitched,” but that it led to them not obeying the truth.
Romans 8:1 (KJV): “There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.” And in the ESV: “There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.” This also seems like a significant omission, the clarification that there is no condemnation for those in Christ who are walking in the Spirit, not in the flesh. But to leave this out implies that there is no condemnation at all for anyone who believes, regardless of how you walk. And while I would say this is right in the eternal sense (which is how I’ve always read it), is it accurate to make this claim for the time we live on earth? Will we not bring condemnation – bad consequences - on ourselves if we drift from the Lord and walk in the flesh? So which version is right? I guess that depends on which source you base your translation on (and that’s a whole other topic and study which I am just now looking into).
Acts 8:37, in response to a eunuch who asked to be baptized (KJV): “And Philip said, ‘If thou believest with all thine heart, though mayest.’ And he [the eunuch] answered and said, “I believe that Jesus is the Son of God.’” And here it is in the ESV: “…” There is no Acts 8:37 in the ESV (along with the other translations that use the same manuscripts the ESV does).
Matthew 18:11 (KJV): “For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.” And in the ESV: “…” There is no Matthew 18:11 in the ESV.
Matthew 5:22 (KJV): “… whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment…” And in the ESV: “… everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment.” Leaving off “without a cause” makes a huge difference in meaning. (And the person who wrote the post I found this in points out that it makes Jesus liable for judgment because Jesus Himself got angry.)
Luke 9:55-56 (KJV): “But he turned and rebuked them and said, ‘Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. For the Son of man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them.’ And they went to another village.” And in the ESV: “But he turned and rebuked them. And they went on to another village.” Hmm?
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.
