The Calvinist ESV: Psalm 10:4, Luke 9:56, John 8:9, Gal. 4:7
Some more verses (#73-76) "The Calvinist ESV" series (from the long post "A Random Verse That Destroys Calvinism (And 'Is the ESV a Calvinist Bible'?)"):
#73: (I got this one from the post The King James AV 1611 Bible vs. The English Standard Version, from Now The End Begins)
Here's Psalm 10:4 in the KJV: "The wicked, through the pride of his countenance, will not seek after God..."
And here's the ESV: "In the pride of his face the wicked does not seek after him..."
Once again, as we have repeatedly seen, in the KJV, the people themselves make decisions about God. In this verse, they WILL NOT seek after God. But in the ESV, they simply do not seek Him. And in Calvinism, the non-elect do not seek Him not because they themselves choose to reject Him but because God causes them to desire/decide to reject Him.
Over and over again, we can see a clear difference between the KJV and the ESV. In the KJV, the people are clearly responsible for their desires, decisions, and actions. But not in the ESV. Instead, to fit Calvinism, the ESV consistently downplays the responsibility people have over their desires, decisions, and actions, making it more about them being created a certain way and about being controlled by the desires Calvi-god gave them.
#74: I already mentioned this one, but I didn’t explain why it matters. The KJV quotes Luke 9:56 this way (Jesus’s words in bold): “‘For the Son of Man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them.’ And they went to another village.” But the ESV only says “And they went on to another village.” It (along with the other modern translations that are based on the same corrupted manuscripts) totally removed the fact that Jesus said He came to save men, not destroy them. And the thing is, He says this in reference to the Samaritans who did not receive Him, which would (by Calvinist standards) make them non-elect. And yet Jesus says He came not to destroy them but to save them. But if Calvinism is true, then Jesus came to save only the elect and to make sure the non-elect burned in hell for all eternity for His glory. How does that square with Jesus’s claim of coming to save those non-believers, not destroy them? No wonder a Calvinist Bible would get rid of this verse or make it a mere foot-note.
#75: In John 8, men wanted to stone a woman accused of adultery, but then Jesus said that whoever is without sin can cast the first stone. Here is the beginning of John 8:9 in the (KJV): “And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one …” But the ESV says “But when they heard it, they went away one by one.” The ESV takes out the idea that the men were convicted by their own conscience, removing the ability/responsibility of people to make decisions on their own, to evaluate right and wrong in their own minds, to be convicted of sin from their own conscience. This allows Calvinists to put it all on God, to say that God determines (predetermines!) whether we are convicted of our sins or not, whether we obey Him or not, whether we believe in Him or not, that mankind does not have the ability to do those things because it’s all up to God.
#76: Galatians 4:7 (KJV): “Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.” And the ESV: “So you are no longer a slave, but a son, and if a son, then an heir through God.” In the KJV, we are heirs of God, through Christ. Anyone who is “in Christ” - who puts their faith in Christ - becomes a child of God (Eph. 1:13, John 1:12, Gal. 3:26). But in the ESV, we are heirs through God, with no mention of Christ. To be merely an heir “through God” could mean, in Calvinism, that whoever believes (whoever is an heir) is determined by God, that it happens through God efforts and decisions, not through our own decision to put our faith in Christ.
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.
