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.
#42: This one isn't major, but it's a tiny tweak that bolsters their theology.
Romans 3:24 in the KJV is
"Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus." In the ESV, it reads:
"and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus."
While the ESV isn't technically wrong here, there is a different connotation between "freely" and "as a gift." To be "justified freely" because of God's grace and Jesus's sacrifice means that you - that anyone - can grab onto those things without cost, without having to earn it. But the ESV turns justification by God's grace into "a gift," from something you can do to something you have to be given. This allows Calvinists to use it to support their idea that God gives certain people (the elect) the gift of faith, of salvation, which then allows them to say that this verse is only about the elect.
Romans 3:23-24 (paraphrased for Calvinism): "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and some are justified by his grace as a gift (which we know is given only to the elect), through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus."
"Freely" suggests it's available to all people, free for the taking. But "as a gift" (in Calvinism) means God chooses who to give it to, and He only gives it to the elect. In Calvinism, it's not free for all or available to all; it's a gift given to/forced on a few.
#43: Another small tweak in Romans is in the next verse, Romans 3:25.
KJV: "Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins..."
ESV: "whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness..."
The KJV sounds more "free/available to all," like it did in Romans 3:24, and more like we are responsible for whether we have faith or not. It's saying that if we have faith in Jesus's blood, He will be the propitiation for our sins. But the ESV separates "faith" from "in his blood." It changes it from "having faith in His blood makes Him our propitiation" to "His blood is the propitiation, and it's to be received by the faith God puts inside you." In Calvinism, it's not that you - that anyone - can have faith and be saved; it's that only those who are first given faith by God are able to receive the propitiation. In Calvinism, faith isn't something we do; it's something God puts in us.
Calvinists believe that the elect have to have faith essentially injected into them by God first, before they can believe. And this faith, which is now inside them, causes them to "receive" that propitiation. So faith, in the Calvinist version of this and any verse, isn't something we do or have any influence over whether we have or not; it's something that happens to us, that God puts in us to cause us to believe. And since God doesn't inject faith into the non-elect, they can never believe or "receive" propitiation. In the KJV version of this verse, it's more about the people themselves putting their faith in Jesus, choosing to believe in His blood, which leads to propitiation for their sins. But in the ESV, it's more about the elect having faith first planted in them which causes them to receive the propitiation. A slightly different wording with different connotations. Tiny Calvinist tweaks.
#44: Another Romans one is Romans 4:11. The KJV says that Abraham "received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had." But the ESV says "He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith ..."
In the KJV, he has a righteous faith. But in the ESV, he has righteousness that he got by faith. So which is it? (Once again, I'd say that this isn't a huge difference or that it has majorly different meanings, but it's a small tweak to more strongly support Calvinism.)
To say that Abraham had a "righteous faith" sounds like he had an impact on the trueness, the genuineness, of his faith. His faith was up to him, in his hands. But to change it to "he got righteousness through faith" (paraphrase) takes Abraham's faith out of his hands and puts it in God's hands, supporting the Calvinist idea that God first gives the elect the "gift of faith," which leads to them (and only them) being declared righteous.
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.
