The Calvinist ESV: John 8:44 and 10:12

Oh, I've got two more for now, and I'm adding them to the list...

#91: John 8:44 in the KJV: "Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do..."

And now in the ESV: "You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires."

The ESV is one of the few translations to add in the idea of your Will (as a noun) carrying out Satan's desires.  But in the Greek text analysis, there is no mention of a "Will" (noun) wanting to do anything.  It just essentially says that those of the devil will do what the devil likes.

Why the addition of "your will is to do"?  

I've covered this before in other changes the ESV makes just like this, but the simple answer is this: 

Because Calvinists believe that our Wills control/determine what we "want" to do, which controls/determines what we "choose" to do.

In Calvinism, we get - by God's predestination - either the Will of the elect (regenerated) or of the non-elect (unregenerated).  God implants both of these Wills with certain desires (the desire to do what He predestined us to do), and we cannot change or resist those desires.  We absolutely must follow them.  

And so if you are non-elect, God gives you the Will that is filled with the desire to sin, do evil, and reject Him.  And so since that's all your Will can desire to do, that's all you can choose to do.  Your Will controls you, and you cannot change your Will.

The KJV just says that evil people will do evil things.  But to make sure that we don't think this is really a choice or that we could choose to do something different, the ESV adds in the idea of our Wills controlling us, making it much more Calvinistic.

#92: Okay, this is totally a small thing, so I won't make a big deal out of it, but I thought I'd point it out because it's thought-provoking:

John 10 talks about Jesus being the shepherd and how the sheep will not follow a stranger.

And John 10:12 in the KJV says "But he that is an hireling, and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not..."

But here is the ESV: "He who is a hired hand and not a shepherd, who does not own the sheep..."

Do you see the difference I see?

In the KJV, "own" is an adjective.  It's saying the sheep are not the sheep of a stranger but are Jesus's own sheep.  An adjective.

But in the ESV (and others), "own" is a verb, as in the stranger does not own the sheep, but Jesus does.  Jesus owns the sheep.  A verb.

I know it's not a big thing, but it still carries different connotations, doesn't it?

It's the difference between a man saying "I have my own wife and kids" and a man saying "I own my wife and kids."

It's a subtle difference, but as a verb it can be used to support a more Calvinistic view of sovereignty and election.  (And if I just stumbled across this change, it makes me wonder how many more there are like this that I haven't found.)

And FYI, in the Greek, it's an adjective, not a verb.  The KJV is correct, as usual.

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.