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.
#34: This one (found in the same post as the verses in #25-33) is quite interesting, baffling, and more than a bit disturbing. It's not particularly Calvinistic, just disturbing.
Philippians 2:6 in the KJV: “Who [Jesus], being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God.” This is saying that Jesus did not think He was wrong to consider Himself equal with God, that He was not robbing God of His glory by claiming He is God because He Himself is God, in the flesh.
But here it is in the ESV: “who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped.” This is saying the exact opposite, that Jesus did not consider Himself to be equal with God. What’s that about!?! (And why is Jesus's divinity - "in the form of God" - in the past tense in the ESV, when it should be in the present tense, as it is in the KJV? Interesting!) Based on this verse alone, I would say the ESV is wrong to use whatever manuscripts they used for their translating (along with others who use the same ones). Jesus clearly did not think it wrong to claim divinity, that He was equal with God. In fact, it would be wrong for Jesus to deny His divinity! But despite His divinity, He left His heavenly dwelling to come here to earth and put on human flesh so that He could die for us. But the ESV (among others) says that Jesus did not consider Himself able to be equal with God but came to earth as a man. Big, weird difference!
[To be honest, I always thought "not counting equality with God something to be grasped" was just a way to stress Jesus's humility, that He was being super humble to not demand to stay in heaven but that He decided to give up heaven for awhile to come down here in a human body, for our sakes. I always just figured it was teaching that if Jesus, who is God, is that humble, then we should be humble too. And I would be okay with that interpretation of it. But once I saw that the KJV had a completely different message, now I'm not okay with it, with the changes they made to the meaning of that verse. And now I don't see it as being a verse about "super humility," but a verse about Jesus denying His divinity. And this is disturbing to me and makes me totally question the reliability of any translation that uses the manuscripts that say this. If I have to choose which one is more right, I am going with the KJV over all these newer ones. Because Jesus could never deny His divinity.]
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.
