The Calvinist ESV: 2 Tim. 2:26, Psalm 51:5

Some more verses (#63 and #64) in "The Calvinist ESV" series, from the long post "A Random Verse That Destroys Calvinism (And 'Is the ESV a Calvinist Bible'?)":

#63: 2 Timothy 2:26 (ESV): “and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will.”

But here it is in the KJV: “And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.”  Interesting!  (Incidentally, this Will also means “preferred Will,” see #62, but this time of the devil.  It was the devil’s preference to take these people captive.)

In the ESV, after having been taken captive by the devil and forced to do his Will, God grants them repentance (vs 25), and they come to their senses and escape the snare of the devil, which, in Calvinism, would mean that God caused them to believe in Him, to come to their senses, and to escape the devil’s snare.

But in the KJV, they are taken captive at the devil’s Will, but they recover themselves out of the devil’s snare after God grants them repentance.  This is not about forcing them to repent and believe (as Calvinism teaches) but about giving them the chance to choose for themselves to repent and believe, to escape the devil’s snare.  (Kinda like how God “granted repentance” to the Gentiles, not just the Jews, in Acts 11:18.  Being “granted repentance” doesn’t mean He forced them to repent and believe, just that He gave them the opportunity to do it, but they have to choose.)

The ESV is much more about God predestining who escapes Satan’s snare and then causing it to happen, while the KJV is about people choosing for themselves to escape.

# 64: This one is not about the ESV but about the NIV, but I think it's important to include it because Calvinists always use this verse to "prove" their idea of "total depravity," that from birth we are all wicked, rebellious, God-haters who could never come to God unless God makes us do it.  (Well, only the elect, of course.  Those He pre-chose.  Everyone else is out of luck.)

Psalm 51:5 in the NIV: "Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me."

Now in the KJV: "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me."  It does not say that David was sinful from birth but that he was conceived in sin.  It is not a comment about the depravity of babies but about the sin-filled world that babies are born into (or about David's mother's sin which led to his conception, or at least his belief that she sinned).  Big difference!  

(My husband read of an old belief people used to have back in the day, which was that people were born on the same day of the week that they were conceived.  And so if a baby was born on the Sabbath, it meant the parents conceived the baby on a Sabbath, which meant they would have violated Sabbath rules about not having sex on the Sabbath.  Who knows, but maybe David is referring to a "sin" along those lines.  It's an interesting thought.)

Also, let's see what else God says about this: "... for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth ..." (Genesis 8:21, KJV).  Notice that God doesn't say "from birth", but from their "youth."  And "youth" doesn't necessarily mean "infancy/childhood" because this word is also used in Psalm 127:4 which talks about "children of the youth," children from one's youth.  Babies and small children cannot have children.  Grown people have children.  Therefore, "youth" in these verses is more about being older, grown, beyond adolescence.  

My point is that God says not that we are wicked from birth, as Calvinists say, but from our youth.  God doesn't hold sins against infants and children, whom He calls "innocent" (Jeremiah 19:4).  It doesn't mean they are perfect, just that He doesn't hold them guilty until they are old enough to understand/decide between right from wrong (Deuteronomy 1:39, Isaiah 7:16), to accept or reject Jesus as Lord and Savior.  Before that time, God's grace covers them (and the mentally-handicapped who can never truly understand or make a conscious decision to trust Jesus as Lord and Savior).

In fact, the Bible also contradicts Calvinism's "total depravity" in Romans 2:14-16 (NIV, emphasis is mine): "Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them."  This clearly says that we can - by nature - do the good things the law requires of us, that our consciences and thoughts guide us, convicting us or defending us.  And we do this because God wrote the law on our hearts, on the hearts of sinful, fallen men.  Where is the "total depravity" in that!?!  That is the opposite of Calvinism's "total depravity"!  

God Himself repeatedly contradicts Calvinism's idea of total depravity and wicked babies.  I'm just sayin'.  

[This is also covered in my posts "Do babies go to heaven if they die? A critique of Calvinism's answer" and "Things my Calvinist pastor said #3: Even Babies Are Wicked"] 

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.