Alana L. 5V (the twisted ESV)

This series is loosely based on this 14-minute video from Alana L.: 5 Signs Your Loved One is Becoming a Calvinist  

 

Point #5 still: 

V: "Sovereign, sovereign, sovereign, sovereign."  

Sidenote: The Calvinist ESV

In a previous post (5Q: Robots), I said I'd do a post like this... and now I'm finally getting around to it.

In this post, I want to show you something about the Calvinist ESV, how I believe that the Calvinists who worked on the ESV made sure their translation fits with Calvinism: with their incorrect view of mankind's free-will (which is not really "free" at all in Calvinism, as we've seen in previous posts) and with their incorrect view of God's sovereignty, that He preplans, decrees, orchestrates, causes, controls everything, including our thoughts, actions, sins, evils, unbelief, destinies, etc. (but just try to find "sovereign" defined that way in the Bible, especially in the KJV, which I believe is most accurate).  

The ESV (and other translations like it) basically removes the idea of man having control over/influence over/choice about his desires and decisions, replacing it with the idea that his desires/nature/Will controls him and his decisions, allowing Calvinists to say "See, man is controlled by his desires/nature/Will, which has been decreed by/preprogrammed by/controlled by Calvi-god."  

And these kinds of changes are all over the ESV!

[And for even more on how the ESV is twisted to be Calvinist, see this post, which is where I took the following from, but I totally shortened it here.]

But first, a note about the ESV vs King James:

If you 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 in the verses I'll share, 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.   

Notice in these verses (I'll be as brief as possible) how different the ESV is (and it's not always just the ESV, but other translations too, especially if they base their translations on the same manuscripts the ESV did) compared to the KJV (which I consider the most accurate, especially since the KJV usually gets the parts of speech right - noun, verb, etc. - according to the Greek and Hebrew in the concordance.  

If you never noticed this before, you're in for a fun ride... if you like learning this kind of thing, which I do.  (And I know this section is long, but it could've been worse, so be thankful it's only this long.😉)

1. John 7:17 in the KJV: "If any man will do his will ..."

And how about in the NIV: "Anyone who chooses to do the will of God ..."  

And the Berean Study Bible: "If any man desires to do his will ..."  

And the CSB: "If anyone wants to do his will ..."

What do all these have in common: "will do... chooses... desires to... wants to..."?

They are all verbs, something we do, showing that man himself does the willing, wanting, choosing.

But now the ESV: "If anyone's will is to do God's will ..."

The ESV changes it from a verb to the noun "Will," changing it from the man determining/choosing what he does... to the man's Will (which Calvi-god preprogrammed) being in control of the man and determining what the man wants and chooses (causing him to do only what Calvi-god predetermined he'd do).  The ESV is essentially saying "If Calvi-god gave you the regenerated Will that is preprogrammed with the desire to do his Will..."  Very different from the other translations.  Very Calvinist!

2. Romans 9:16 in the KJV: "So then it is not of him that willeth ..."  Once again, "willing" is a verb, done by the man, about what we choose to do or not do.  

But the ESV says "So then it depends not on human will..."  This is very different.  Once again it changes the verb "will" to the noun "Will," as if our human Will (predetermined and preprogrammed by Calvi-god) controls us.

[And so which one is right?  The KJV, of course, because according to the Greek, the word "willing" is a verb, not a noun.  It's what we do; it's not a thing that controls us.]

3. John 8:44 in the KJV: "... the lusts of your father ye will do..."  

The ESV: "... and your will is to do your father's desires."  

Once again, in the KJV, "will" is a verb; it's what you do.  But in the ESV, it's a noun, as if your Will (predetermined and preprogrammed by Calvi-god) determines/controls what you do.

4. 1 Corinthians 7:37 in the KJV: “Nevertheless, he that standeth steadfast in his heart, having no necessity, but hath power over his own will …”

But here is the ESV: “But whoever is firmly established in his heart, being under no necessity but having his desire under control …”

In the KJV, the man does the steadfast standing in his heart and has power over his own Will.  

But in the ESV, both are passive: The man's heart is firmly established and his desire is under control... but not necessarily by him.  Notice that the ESV completely gets rid of the idea of man having power over his Will, substituting in "desire" instead.  And it doesn't even specify that he has power over his own desire, whereas the KJV says that he has power over his own Will.  In the ESV, it's just "under control"... but by whom?  

In the ESV, it's as if it just happens to him, as if God made him be steadfast, with desires under control.  And this is what Calvinism teaches, that God does things like this to us, in us, not that we have any control over it or choice about it.  

It's similar to the difference between saying “I painted my house” and “I had my house painted.”  In the KJV, we do it.  But in the ESV, it just happens to us.

Very different!

5. Hosea 5:4 in the KJV: "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..."

In the KJV, the people have control over their deeds (doings); they will not do what they need to do to turn to God, even though they could.  But in the ESV, their deeds (predetermined, caused, orchestrated, controlled by Calvi-god, of course) control the people.

6. Hosea 4:8 in the KJV: "... they set their heart on their iniquity."

And in the ESV: "... they are greedy for their iniquity."

In the KJV, the people choose to set their own hearts on their sins, pursuing their sins.  

But in the ESV, they are "greedy" for their sins, but not necessarily by their own decision.  In Calvinism, Calvi-god decreed that they got the unregenerated nature/Will which contains only the desire to sin, causing them to be greedy for sin and to only be able to choose sin.  Very different! 

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

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

It's similar here: In the KJV, the people themselves make their own hearts ready for sin (verb).  They decide, they control, they have ownership over their hearts.  But in the ESV, they simply have hearts that burn for sin, as if it's preprogrammed that way.

8. 2 Peter 2:14 in the KJV says that the people have a "heart they have exercised with covetous practices."  

But the ESV simply says "they have hearts trained in greed."  

Once again, the KJV is clear that the people themselves trained their hearts with sin.  But the ESV simply says they have hearts that are trained (as if just happens to them)... but by whom?  By Calvi-god, of course!  By the nature he preprogrammed them with. 

9. Psalm 10:4 in the KJV: "The wicked, through the pride of his countenance, will not seek after God..."

ESV: "In the pride of his face the wicked does not seek after him..."

In the KJV, wicked man is so prideful that he "will not" seek God, implying that he could, but chooses not to.  But in the ESV, wicked man "does not" seek God - and Calvinism says it's because he cannot seek God - because the pride that was preprogrammed into him won't let him.  And this is very different from the KJV because it removes the idea of man's choice over his decisions, of his responsibility (ability to respond, to decide), and of his option to pick anything else.

10. 2 Peter 3:5 in the KJV: "For this they willingly are ignorant of ..."  

But the ESV says "For they deliberately overlook this fact..."

The ESV removes the idea that the people were willfully ignorant, that they themselves willingly chose to be that way, making it sound like they merely "deliberately overlooked" something - which, in Calvinism, would be because they were predestined to overlook it because Calvi-god caused them to be that way.

11. 1 Peter 1:14 in the KJV: "As obedient children, not fashioning yourselves according to the former lusts in your ignorance,".  

But the ESV simply says "As obedient children, do not be conformed to the passions of your former ignorance."  

The ESV removes the KJV's clear statement that we fashion ourselves to be a certain way.

[And furthermore, the command in the ESV - "do not be conformed" - is pointless in Calvinism because Calvi-god often commands things but then prevents people from doing it, causing the opposite of what he commanded.  And so in Calvinism, whether or not someone obeys is already predetermined by Calvi-god, and he very well might secretly decree that people disobey his spoken decrees.  And they get no choice about it because they don't "fashion themselves," but Calvi-god fashioned them as he predetermined.]    

12. John 8:9 in the KJV: “And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one …”  

ESV: “But when they heard it, they went away one by one.”  

The ESV removes the idea that the men were convicted by their own conscience, that they have the ability/responsibility to make decisions on their own, to evaluate right and wrong, and to be convicted of sin.  And removing this allows Calvinists to put it all on God, as if God determines (predetermines) whether we are convicted of our sins or not. 

13. Exodus 32:29 (KJV): "...'Consecrate yourselves today to the Lord ..."

But in the ESV (and others): "...'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.

[Like I said, these kinds of changes are all over the ESV!]

14. Revelation 22:17 in the KJV says "... whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely."    

But the ESV (and many others) says "... let the one who desires take the water of life without price."  

In the KJV, whosoever will - anyone and everyone - can take the water of life freely.  The invitation is offered to all and open to all, and the determining factor is whoever will do it.  But in the ESV (and others) - in Calvinism - the determining factor is whoever can do it - and the only ones who can take the water are those who desire to take it, which is only "the elect" in Calvinism because those are the only ones Calvi-god gives the desire to.  So the ESV's (Calvinism's) "the one who desires" means something very different than the KJV's (non-Calvinism's) "whosoever will (anyone can)." 

15. Titus 3:3, in the KJV, says that the people were once "... serving divers lusts and pleasures ..."

But the ESV says they were " ... slaves to various passions and pleasures ..."

In the KJV, it's a verb, the people serve their pleasures.  But in the ESV, it's a noun, a slave.  Changing it from a verb to a noun changes it from what a person does (what they choose to do) to who a person is, as if Calvi-god created you to be that way and you can't change it: a slave who has no choice but to sin.  (See here that in the Greek for that verse, there is no word for "slave.")

[To further destroy Calvinism, the Bible tells us how we become slaves to sin (and it's not that God predestines/causes it): "to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness." (Romans 6:16, KJV).  We choose whom/what to offer ourselves to, and when we do, we become its servants.  Calvinism says that we sin because we're slaves to sin, but the Bible shows that we're slaves to sin because we yield ourselves to sin.  Same concepts but in a reverse order, which is how Calvinism tricks people, how it sounds so close to truth when it's really so far away.]

16. And Romans goes on in the next verse to tell us how we switch from being servants of sin to servants of obedience: 

Romans 6:17 in the KJV: "But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which delivered you."  

But in the ESV, among others, it says "... [you] have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed,"

In the KJV, "obeyed" is a verb, and it's clear that the people are doing the obeying.  But in the ESV, "obedient" is an adjective (as in "they have become obedient people"), but it doesn't say how they got that way, which allows Calvinists to say that God caused them to be that way.  

[Also, I wonder why the ESV takes out the part about "the doctrine which delivered you," and instead it just says that they "were committed" to "the standard of teaching."  Sounds quite different from a doctrine that delivers.😕] 

17. Acts 6:7 in the King James says "the priests were obedient to the faith," but the ESV says "the priests became obedient to the faith." 

In the KJV, the priests do the obeying (verb).  But in the ESV, obedience is an adjective that describes them, like "they became obedient people."  In the ESV, it's not what they do, but who they are, as if it happens to them (by Calvi-god, of course).

It's like the difference between saying "I curled my hair" and "My hair became curly."  In the first, I curled it.  But in the second, it became curly but not necessarily by me.  Big difference! 

18. Galatians 5:17, KJV: "For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh..."

ESV: "For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh..."

In the KJV, the flesh lusts (verb), but the ESV changes it to a noun: "the desires of the flesh," as if the desires decide what we do, instead of us doing the action of lusting.  This supports the Calvinist's view that we are not in control of our desires or able to manage them... but that our desires are pre-set by Calvi-god and they control of us.  [In the concordance, "desire" is a verb, something we do.  And so the ESV is wrong to make it a noun, as if it's something that controls us.]

19. James 1:12 in the KJV: "Blessed is the man that endureth temptation..." (KJV)  "Enduring the trial" is what he does.

But the ESV says "Blessed is the man who remains steadfast under trial..." which is actually quite different.  Because to "remain steadfast" doesn't necessarily mean the man did anything.  It requires no effort or choice from him.  It simply means he keeps existing as he is - as Calvi-god created/causes him to be - just like a person can "remain" in a medically-induced coma with no effort from them at all, no choice on their part.  It's something that happens to them, nothing they do on their own or that they necessarily had a choice about.

But to be commanded to "endure temptation" and "persevere under trial" (like the other translations say) requires effort and thought and choice and obedience on our parts.  We are not just effortlessly "remaining" in some previous predetermined condition, but we are working hard to bear up under a heavy burden, to stay faithful, to not give in to sin.  And this is our responsibility, our choice.  Not God's.  Very different!

[And it's the same thing in James 5:11 where the ESV changes "we count them happy which endure" (KJV) to "we consider those blessed who remained steadfast" (ESV).]

20. Genesis 2:16: In almost every translation, it says that Adam and Eve can “freely” eat from the trees in the garden, all but the forbidden one.  But the ESV is the only one to say “surely” instead of "freely."  Why?  (We know why!)

21. In Deuteronomy 30:10, almost all of the older translations say something like the KJV does: "If you obey God and keep His commands and if you turn to the Lord ..." (paraphrased), but the ESV is one of the very few translations that says "when you" instead of "if you."  Why?  I'm guessing because "if" implies choice, the freedom to choose among options.

22. Philippians 3:19 in the KJV: "Whose end is destruction, whose god is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame, who mind earthly things."  In the KJV, "mind" is a verb.  In the KJV, the people do the action of minding earthly things.  

But the ESV changes it to a noun: "... with minds set on earthly things."  In the ESV, the people don't mind earthly things; their minds are set on earthly things, which fits much more with Calvinism.  Because in Calvinism, we don't get to choose or have control over what we set our minds on or think about, because Calvi-god does it for us - and we can only think about what he programmed our minds to think about.  In Calvinism, we don't control our minds/thoughts, but our God-determined minds/thoughts control us.  

But since the Greek says it's a verb, we know which translation is the right one.  "Mind" is something we do, not something that controls us and tells us what to do.

[I wonder how many changes one can make to God's Word before it ceases to be God's Word.]

23. Romans 9:22 in the KJV: “What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction.”

But the ESV (and others) says “… prepared for destruction.”  This makes it sound like they were specifically created from the beginning (by God) to be destroyed, which would totally support Calvinism.

But they weren’t “prepared for destruction”; they were “fitted to destruction”.  And according to Vine’s Expository Dictionary, the Greek word for “fitted” in this verse is in the middle voice, meaning that the people fitted themselves to destruction by how they chose to be.  Big difference, and much less Calvinist!

24. Here's the KJV translation of a verse that's commonly used against Calvinism: "... [He] is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance" 2 Peter 3:9.  

But the ESV ends it this way: "... not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance."  Of the commonly-used "word-for-word" translations, the ESV is the only one that says "reach" instead of "come to."  Why is this?

This may seem like a little distinction, but it's not.  And I think it's another attempt to make the Bible more Calvinist.  And here's why:

Let's say I lived in Kansas, and I posted a note on my blog saying "I hope everyone comes to Kansas."  I'm saying that I want anyone and everyone to visit me in Kansas, no matter where they are or who they are or where they're going.  It's an open invitation to anyone who wants to respond.

But if I posted a note saying "I hope everyone reaches Kansas," it would clearly imply that I am talking only to and about those who are already headed to Kansas.  You can only "reach" something if you are already headed towards it, if it's the end goal you are striving for.  I clearly would not be telling people headed to Alaska or Canada or California that "I hope you reach Kansas."  That would be an irreconcilable contradiction.  It would be totally unrelated to and irrelevant for them.  If they are headed in a different direction, to a different destination, they will never reach Kansas no matter how long they travelled.  So obviously I am not talking to them.  I am simply saying that I hope those who are purposely headed to Kansas reach their destination.

The ESV is totally more Calvinist because it's essentially saying that Calvi-god wants all those who are already headed to repentance (the Calv-elect) to reach repentance.  In Calvinism, this is a verse about and for the Calv-elect only, not for the non-Calv-elect who were never headed - and never will be headed - to repentance or salvation at any point in time.  

(And interestingly enough, in none of the other verses where this Greek word is used do the ESV translators change it to "reach."  Only in this verse.😕)

25. The ESV also often changes the verb "believes/believes not" to the noun "believers/unbelievers," changing it from what we do (what we have choice about/control over) to who we are, as if we were created by God to be that way and cannot control it or change it.

Example: 1 Thessalonians 2:13 in the KJV: "... the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe."  

But the ESV says "... in you believers."  

So who's right here?  The ESV or the KJV?  As the Greek shows, the word is a verb - "believes" - not a noun.  So once again, the ESV is wrong and the KJV is right.  It's that the people do the believing (we all have the ability to believe), not that we either are or are not believers based on what God predestined for us.

Some other instances of this are in 1 Thess. 2:10, Acts 19:18, 1 Cor. 10:27, 1 Cor. 14:22, 2 Cor. 4:4, Romans 15:31, and...

1 Peter 1:21 in the KJV: "Who by him do believe in God..."  In the ESV: "who through him are believers in God..."  [I'm pointing this one out specifically because in the KJV, we believe in God through Jesus.  We find God through Jesus.  But in the ESV, it's almost as if Jesus makes us believers in God.  Very Calvinist!]

Changing it from a verb to a noun ultimately changes it from what you choose to do... to who you are, which in Calvinism is "who God made/predestined you to be."  It takes the ability/choice/responsibility out of the person's hands and puts it in God's.

26.  So the ESV (and other translations) change "do not believe" to "unbelievers" and "believes" to "believers" in many verses, changing it from verbs to nouns, from what we do to who we are (who Calvi-god created us to be).  

But furthermore, in verses like John 3:36, Acts 14:2, 1 Peter 3:20, 1 Peter 4:17, 1 Peter 2:7-8, Hebrews 3:18, Romans 2:8, Romans 10:21, and Romans 15:31, the concordance shows that it's not just about "not believing/not obeying" (as if we are unable to, as Calvinists would say), but it's actually about "refusing to be persuaded/refusing to believe/refusing to obey."  But the ESV and many other translations leave out any indication of "refusing."  

And it's no wonder because, to me, "refusing" is a much greater indication of "free-will" than of Calvinist predestination - because we can't refuse something unless it's legitimately offered to us, available to us, possible for us.  We can only "refuse" to believe and obey if belief and obedience are options, true possibilities.  If it wasn't truly possible for us, there'd be nothing to refuse.

All those missing "refused to's" and all those verbs ("who believed/did not believe") changed to nouns ("believers/unbelievers") make the ESV a lot more Calvinistic than a Bible translation has any right to be!  

I'm just sayin'.

These are subtle differences, but they are all over the ESV and they add up, implying something totally different.  (They are all over other translations, too, besides just the ESV, but most clearly and consistently in the ESV - the Calvinist's favored pride-and-joy translation!)

Final note about modern translations of the Bible (and why we shouldn't trust them):

Interestingly, David Cloud writes this in an article from Way of Life Literature called Are the modern versions based on Westcott-Hort? (emphasis is Cloud's):

"... [Those who support modern Bible translations] often disassociate themselves from Westcott-Hort and claim that they merely use an “eclectic” Greek text... [and some] imply that Westcott and Hort are irrelevant to the subject of the biblical text because 'no textual critic now holds to the Westcott and Hort theories of textual criticism.'...

This position DODGES THE REAL ISSUE, WHICH IS THE FACT THAT WESTCOTT AND HORT REPRESENTED THE SIGNAL DEPARTURE FROM THE RECEIVED TEXT THAT IS REPRESENTED TODAY IN THE POPULAR THEORIES OF TEXTUAL CRITICISM.  Westcott and Hort built upon the foundation established by their predecessors, such as Griesbach, Lachmann, and Tischendorf.  Westcott and Hort adapted the textual theories of these men into their own unique blend, and their Greek New Testament represented the first popular departure from the Greek Received Text [the "textus receptus" is the Greek text of the New Testament which the KJV is based on].

While today’s textual scholars do not always admit that they follow Westcott and Hort, many of the more honest ones do admit that they are powerfully influenced by these men.

Bruce Metzger... one of the editors of the United Bible Societies Greek New Testament... makes the following plain admission: 'The International committee that produced the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament...ADOPTED THE WESTCOTT AND HORT EDITION AS ITS BASIC TEXT... ' (Metzger, cited by James Brooks, Bible Interpreters of the 20th Century, p. 264). 

... Brooks further states, '... It is the theory lying behind the Greek text used by most modern versions: The Revised Standard, the New Revised Standard, the New English Bible, the Revised English Bible, the New American Bible, the New American Standard, the Good News Bible, the New International Version, and to a lesser extent, also the Jerusalem Bible and the New Jerusalem Bible' (Ibid.).

... Ernest Cadman Colwell, a textual scholar who published a number of widely used grammars and textbooks [says] '... HORT DID NOT FAIL TO REACH HIS MAJOR GOAL. HE DETHRONED THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS....'

...that Westcott and Hort are key, pivotal men in the modern history of textual criticism and that the current 'eclectic' Greek New Testaments continue to reflect, for the most part, the decisions made by Westcott and Hort....

Dr. Zane Hodges [says] 'MODERN TEXTUAL CRITICISM IS PSYCHOLOGICALLY ‘ADDICTED’ TO WESTCOTT AND HORT.... The result of it all is a methodological quagmire where objective controls on the conclusions of critics are nearly nonexistent.  It goes without saying that no Bible-believing Christian who is willing to extend the implications of his faith to textual matters can have the slightest grounds for confidence in contemporary critical texts' (emphasis added) (Zane C. Hodges, “Rationalism and Contemporary New Testament Textual Criticism,” Bibliotheca Sacra, January 1971, p. 35).

... The fact is that the Westcott-Hort text represents the first widely-accepted departure from the Received Text in the post-Reformation era, and the modern English versions descend directly from the W-H text...  Any man who discounts the continuing significance of Westcott-Hort in the field of Bible texts and versions is probably trying to throw up a smoke screen to hide something."

I know for me, after comparing KJV verses to ESV verses, I trust the KJV much more than the ESV or any other modern translation that is based on Westcott and Hort's texts.

[Also keep in mind that in order to copyright any new translation - to make it "their own" - it has to differ a certain percentage from any other translation.  So therefore, all new copyrighted translations must make a certain amount of changes.  To me, this weakens the integrity and reliability of every new copyrighted translation.  However, I still do read other translations - I grew up with the NIV - but when I wonder about the correct translation of a verse, I almost always go back to the KJV.]

[The posts in this series will be added to the "Alana L." label as they get published.]