The Calvinist ESV: Hebrews 4:2, Hosea

#69-72 in "The Calvinist ESV" series (from the long post "A Random Verse That Destroys Calvinism (And 'Is the ESV a Calvinist Bible'?)"): 

#69, dudes!  [Sorry, couldn't resist.  And come on, you know it reminds you of Bill and Ted, too.]:  

Here is the last half of Hebrews 4:2 in the KJV: "... but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it."  This sounds like the people heard the Word but did not put any faith in it, and so therefore, the Word did not profit them.  (Notice that the people "that heard it [the Word]" are the unbelievers who heard the Word but did not have faith in it.)

But the ESV says "... but the message they heard did not benefit them, because they were not united by faith with those who listened."  To me, this is very different.

In the KJV, faith is what we do.  After hearing the Word, we either choose to have faith in it or not.  But in the ESV (in Calvinism), faith is like a big, heavenly rubber-band that wraps around certain, pre-chosen people and unites them together as believers.  

[Notice in the ESV that "those who listened [to the Word]" are the believers - not the unbelievers, as in the KJV.  And the unbelievers are not united with "those who listened" because that giant rubber-band called "faith" did not include them (Calvi-god did not give them faith).  You see, Calvinists believe that only the elect can really "hear" the Word and that only those who really "hear" the Word - the elect - can and will believe, because Calvi-god makes them believe, because he predestined them to heaven.  So it's no wonder that they would switch the verse from unbelievers (non-elect, according to Calvinists) hearing the Word to believers hearing/listening to the Word.  Calvinists don't think the unbelieving non-elect can truly "hear" the Word.  In fact, Calvi-god makes sure to blind their eyes and harden their hearts so that they cannot truly hear, understand, or respond to the Word.  But if unbelievers could "hear" the Word, they would be in the same position as "the elect," able to respond to the Word, which would mean that they could choose to accept it, which would destroy the Calvinist idea that only the elect can hear and believe the Word because only they were predestined for salvation by Calvi-god.  So it's no wonder this verse was changed in later, more-Calvinist translations.]

In Calvinism, believers are not united THROUGH faith (because of our decision to believe) but BY faith (because Calvi-god injects certain people with "faith" that causes them to believe).  In Calvinism, people don't choose whether to have faith or not, but "faith" (determined by and given by Calvi-god) chooses which people to tie together as believers.

#70-72 (I'd love to get to #100, if I can.  Or maybe just to #99, just to mess with people. 😀)  In Hosea, I recently found 3 verses that downplay mankind's responsibility over his actions.

In the KJV, Hosea 5:4 says "They will not frame their doings to turn unto their God..."

But the ESV says "Their deeds do not permit them to return to their God..."

Notice, in the KJV, that the people have control over their deeds (doings).  They WILL NOT do what they need to do to turn to God.  But in the ESV, the deeds control the people.  (These kinds of changes are all over the ESV.)  Their deeds - which, in Calvinism, God preplans and causes, and nothing different could happen - prevent them from returning to God.

Here's Hosea 4:8 in the KJV: "They eat up the sin of my people, and they set their heart on their iniquity."

And in the ESV: "They feed on the sin of my people: they are greedy for their iniquity."

To "set their heart on [sin]" shows much more personal responsibility for their decision to sin than simply being greedy for it.  In Calvinism, they could be greedy for sin because God set their heart on it (preplanned it/caused it by creating them to be non-elect and giving them the sin-nature that can only desire/choose to sin), but in the KJV, it's clear that the people themselves set their heart on sin.  (Of course, Calvinists could simply add another layer to that and say "Yeah, it says the people set their heart on sin but that's because God predestined it."  But it's even more Calvinist to simply take out the "they set their heart on" altogether.)

Now here's Hosea 7:6 in the KJV: "For they have made ready their heart [for sin] like an oven ..."

But the ESV says "For with hearts like an oven they approach their intrigue..."

Notice in the KJV, the people themselves make their hearts ready for sin.  But in the ESV, their hearts are simply ready for sin, but not by them.  And of course, in Calvinism, their hearts are made ready for sin by God's choice, decree, and control.

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.