The Calvinist ESV: Ex. 32:29, "Hardens," Rom. 8:2

#87-89 in "The Calvinist ESV" series, from the long post "A Random Verse That Destroys Calvinism (And 'Is the ESV a Calvinist Bible'?)":

#87: Exodus 32:29 (KJV): "For Moses had said, 'Consecrate yourselves to day to the Lord ..."

But in the ESV and some others: "And Moses said, 'Today you have been ordained for the service of the Lord."

In the KJV, the people do it themselves, but in the ESV it's done to them.  Subtle difference, but it might be significant, especially since these kinds of changes/differences are all over the ESV.

[And here's an interesting difference, unrelated to Calvinism:  

Exodus 32:25 in the KJV: "And when Moses saw that the people were naked; (for Aaron had made them naked unto their shame among their enemies:)". 

And here's the ESV:  "And when Moses saw that the people had broken loose (for Aaron had let them break loose, to the derision of their enemies),"

I don't really have anything to say about it, just thought it was interesting that the KJV's "naked" was changed to "break loose" in the ESV.]  

#88: Okay now, this one is gonna be different because I am actually calling out an error in the KJV, whereas the ESV gets it more right.  This time.  

Calvinists and non-Calvinists debate who hardened Pharoah's heart first: Did God predetermine to harden Pharoah's heart from the beginning, before the first plague in Egypt (the Calvinist view) ... or did Pharoah choose to harden his own heart in the first several plagues and then God confirmed/strengthened his choice by further hardening his heart in the later plagues (the non-Calvinist view)?

I read it the non-Calvinist way.  I believe that when God tells Moses that He WILL harden Pharoah's heart (Exodus 4:21, 7:3), He means NOT that He hardened it now but that He WILL harden it in the later plagues after Pharoah first chose to harden his own heart in the earlier ones.  (And God can predict this because He already foreknows what will happen.  However, be aware that Calvinists redefine "foreknows" as "foreplanned and then causes.")

However, Calvinists think that Exodus 4:21, 7:3 means God hardened Pharoah's heart right then, before the plagues, meaning that Pharaoh didn't have a choice, that God caused him to refuse to let the people go after commanding him to let the people go.  And then God punishes him for not letting the people go, even though Pharoah had no control over his choice and was just doing what God caused him to do, according to Calvinism. 

Unfortunately, the KJV seems to confirm the Calvinist view in Exodus 7:13 when, at the beginning of the plagues, it says "And he hardened Pharoah's heart...," making it sound like God hardened Pharoah's heart at the beginning.

However, looking into it deeper, it seems as though this is a mistranslation.  Apparently, it should read more like "And Pharoah's heart was hardened" or "And Pharoah hardened his heart."  See the translation of the Hebrew into English by clicking here ("And grew hard heart of Pharoah") and see various commentaries on the proper translation of this verse by clicking here, which includes comments like these:

From Ellicot’s Commentary for English Readers: “He hardened Pharaoh’s heart” is “a mis-translation. The verb is intransitive, and 'Pharaoh’s heart' is its nominative case. Translate, 'Pharaoh’s heart hardened itself.' It is essential to the idea of a final penal hardening that in the earlier stages Pharaoh should have been left to himself.”

From Benson Commentary: “And he hardened Pharaoh’s heart — That is, permitted it to be hardened: or, as the very same Hebrew word is rendered in Exodus 7:22, Pharaoh’s heart was hardened.”

From Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges: “… In this case, the meaning will be that God ‘hardened’ Pharaoh just in so far as he hardened himself… He only hardens those who begin by hardening themselves … it would be contrary to His moral attributes, and inconsistent with the character of a righteous God, if He were to harden those whose hearts were turned towards Him, and did not wish to harden themselves. The Pharaoh—whatever he was in actual history—is depicted in Exodus as from the first a self-willed, obstinate man who persistently hardens himself against God, and resists all warnings: God thus hardens him only because he has first hardened himself.”

From Pulpit Commentary: "'And he hardened Pharaoh’s heart.' Rather, 'But Pharaoh’s heart was hard.' The verb employed is not active, but neuter; and 'his heart' is not the accusative, but the nominative. Pharaoh’s heart was too hard for the sign to make much impression on it.” 

Interestingly, the ESV is closer to the proper translation when it says "Still Pharoah's heart was hardened..."  Whereas the KJV is more wrong and more Calvinist.  This doesn't happen often, but it did here.  And it deserves to be highlighted because Pharaoh's story (his hardened heart) is a big part of the debate between Calvinists and non-Calvinists.

#89: Romans 8:2 in the KJV: "For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death."

Now in the ESV: "For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death."

Do you notice what's different about these?

In the King James, it's "the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus", but in the ESV it's "the Spirit of life ... in Christ Jesus."  Life is tied to Christ Jesus in the KJV, but it's tied to the Spirit in the ESV.

Does this matter?  I think so.  I think it's a subtle but significant difference to separate the "Spirit of life" from "in Christ Jesus."

To keep it together - "the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus" - is to say that life is found in Christ Jesus, that we get eternal life through our faith in Him, by believing in Him, as clearly taught in the Bible (whoever believes will be saved).  

But to separate out the "Spirit of life" as its own thing is to make it an entity unto itself, as if the "Spirit of life" - whether or not the Spirit makes you alive or not - is what determines if you are saved or not.  And of course, only the elect will get the "Spirit of life," and so only the elect will be set free, in Christ Jesus, from sin and death.     

Maybe you won't agree, but I think it's a subtle difference that matters.  Is it "life in Christ Jesus (believing in Jesus) sets you free" ... or is it "The Spirit of life sets you (the elect) free"? 

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.