The Calvinist ESV: Luke 2:14, Romans 9:22, Rev. 22:17

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.

#57:  In the KJV, Luke 2:14 reads “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good-will towards men,” proclaiming that Jesus’s entrance into the world is for the good-will of men, of mankind, of all people.

But in the ESV (and others with similar translations), it reads “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among those with whom he is pleased.”  The ESV (and others) says something very different than the KJV.  According to the ESV (and others) peace is not for all men (as the KJV affirms), but it's only for "those with whom he is pleased," which in Calvinism would be the elect.  This allows Calvinists to say that there are those with whom He is not pleased (the non-elect), and peace was never intended for them.  This then makes Jesus’s entrance into the world only for the benefit of the elect.

(I simplified this one after watching Brian from Faith on Fire address this same verse in his video "How Calvinism Infiltrates Christianity in Modern Bibles Distorting the Good News of the Gospel".  Watch his video for a more in-depth look at it.)

#58:  Romans 9:22 in the KJV says “What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction.”

But the ESV says “… prepared for destruction.”  This makes it sound like they were specifically created to be destroyed, which would totally support Calvinism.

But they weren’t “prepared for destruction”; they were “fitted to destruction”.  And according to Vine’s Expository Dictionary, the Greek word for “fitted” in this verse is in the middle voice, meaning that the people fitted themselves to destruction by how they chose to be.  Big difference!

#59:  A small one, but Revelation 22:17 in the KJV says "... whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely."  Whosoever will - anyone and everyone who will - can take the water of life freely.  The invitation and offer is open to all.  

But the ESV (and many others) says "... let the one who desires take the water of life without price."  While this isn't highly significant because many of us would still understand this to mean that anyone can desire the water of life, Calvinists would use this to support their idea that only those who were given (by God) the desire for the water of life have access to the water of life.  In Calvinism, "the ones who desire" are already predetermined by God to want/drink the water of life, and no one else can drink the water or will even want to drink the water because they were given (by God) the sin-nature that only desires to reject the water of life.  This is how Calvinists would work this verse into their theology.     

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.