Thread: Translations with Arminian Bias?

OK, we know that the AV has Reformed leanings as does the the ESV, I know that Ken Taylor's Paraphrase Living Bible has a STRONG Arminian "slant". What other more popular Translations have an Arminian leaning?

IMO (caveat: I have had no seminary training; I've only pulled many all-nighters over the last 9 years, comparing about 1,700 verses. I have been sternly taken to task by ministers and others for mentioning this - - and stating what I'm about to state), all translations that don't come from the TR stream (NIV, NASB, NKJV, Amplified, etc.) have some Arminian "bent" to them. Compare just these verses, TR vs. non-TR: Genesis 15:1; 2 Corinthians 2:17 (although the 1599 Geneva notes have an adequate explanation of the difference in translation of that verse); Luke 2:33 and 4:4; Galatians 1:9; Colossians 1:14. I went a little further and compared them to two Catholic bibles that I own, one from high school and one from college. The similarities between the higher critical text versions and the Catholic ones are astounding.

I've heard a couple of things recently about the late Dr. Edward Freer Hills, to whom I think I referred favorably in past posts, that have made me doubt his scholarship, if not his sanity. On the other hand, they may have been part of the ad hominem attacks on him for being a diehard supporter and researcher of the KJB that consumed the latter part of his life.

The notes in Scofield Bibles are Arminian in their slant, as are those in the Thompson Chain Reference KJV I often use. I ignore them. If you look at the verses cited above, what is being undermined by their changes? Covenant theology (Genesis 15:1 - is God playing a guessing game with Abram at that point, according, for example, to the NASB's rendering?) and the deity of Jesus Christ (other verses, such as the one from Luke 2). If one removes, "...but by every word of God" from Luke 4:4, that is not an aid to one who is seriously aiming for "setting (his) sights not on things on the earth..." (Colossians 3:2.)

The implications and inferences that one may draw from what I found in all those nights of Bible-verse comparisons are staggering. However, as I stated, I'm not seminary-trained and so whatever I say has absolutely no "heft" to it...

Margaret

(There are Reformed tracts on the importance of keeping to TR-based Bible versions; we give them out to visitors at our new church, according to the direction of our Presbytery...)

Margaret,

Can you give us an example of bias in the Thompson Chain Reference? I don't have one but it has been touted as the most unbiased reference Bible. Also, while it has the chain references, I was not aware that it has "notes".

Some from Arminian backgrounds have alleged that the NIV has a Calvinistic bias. This may be because they are aware of the CRC's role in bringing that translation to fruition.

I have also seen at least one site that claimed that the NKJV is especially good for Wesleyan-Arminians but the author gave no evidence to support this claim.

Originally Posted by Pilgrim

Some from Arminian backgrounds have alleged that the NIV has a Calvinistic bias. This may be because they are aware of the CRC's role in bringing that translation to fruition.

I have also seen at least one site that claimed that the NKJV is especially good for Wesleyan-Arminians but the author gave no evidence to support this claim.

I think I saw that site as well, I know there were a number of conservative Presbyterians on Translation, and I have never seen much of an indication of this either. Before the ESV came out Sproul used the NKJV often in his books. It was also the basis for the New Geneva Study Bibles as the text.

This is neither Calvinistic nor Arminian, but I noticed while listening to the audio NIV copy I have that they remove the word evil several times. It could have just been the text I was listening to (Gen. 47-50) but it was bothersome.

Especially the way they translated our beloved Gen. 50:20
NIV

20 You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives.

Rather than as the NKJV puts it

20 But as for you, you meant evil against me; but God meant it for good, in order to bring it about as it is this day, to save many people alive.

I guess it kinda means the same thing, but it should would be hard to convince the Arminian that God predetermines sin using the NIV here.

Originally Posted by Sonoftheday

This is neither Calvinistic nor Arminian, but I noticed while listening to the audio NIV copy I have that they remove the word evil several times. It could have just been the text I was listening to (Gen. 47-50) but it was bothersome.

Especially the way they translated our beloved Gen. 50:20
NIV

20 You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives.

Rather than as the NKJV puts it

20 But as for you, you meant evil against me; but God meant it for good, in order to bring it about as it is this day, to save many people alive.

I guess it kinda means the same thing, but it should would be hard to convince the Arminian that God predetermines sin using the NIV here.

Good point.

Originally Posted by Pilgrim

Margaret,

Can you give us an example of bias in the Thompson Chain Reference? I don't have one but it has been touted as the most unbiased reference Bible. Also, while it has the chain references, I was not aware that it has "notes".

Oh, the notes that I was referring to in the Thompson Chain Reference are in the prefaces and in the section (doesn't appear to stand alone as one of the official appendices) in the back entitled, "The Origin and Growth of the English Bible" (10th printing, 2002 is what I have). There, it cedes ground and gives the nod as leading to "better Bible versions" in its discussion of the "higher critical text" on pp. 1587-1588. Curiously, it doesn't mention the names of either Fenton John Anthony Hort or Brook Foss Westcott when it discusses the Revised Version of 1881. But that's not surprising to me.

The King James translators' biographies hardly compare to those of Hort and Westcott: The KJV Translators from Translators Revived;
Westcott and Hort. The former were scholars, godly men who were likely regenerate. Westcott and Hort allegedly were members of the Fabian Society: The Nineteenth Century Occult Revival. The Bible versions that followed the Revised Version were also post-Finney and they were never going to have a Reformed slant to them, anyway: The Disturbing Legacy of Charles Finney - Dr. Michael Horton. Reformed doctrine, as mainstream, was on its way downward by the Enlightenment, unfortunately, and things only got worse from then on. We who frequent this board, every one of us, has been peculiarly and specially blessed, and we should never forget it.

For the past decade, I've gone round and round with people on the Bible versions issue. It has been anything but a pleasant experience. Conclusion I've drawn: not going to argue it anymore. People will read the Bible version that the Holy Spirit is leading them to read and it is emphatically not my place to judge or to try to lead them away from their choice. The Lord's ways are higher than ours and He, magnificently, can use anything for good... I am not an officeholder in a church and being female, I can never be one, which is eminently okay with me. I was saved while reading the NIV (one of whose translators was Virginia Mollenkott - ) and I would never denigrate someone else's Bible preference, whether it has an Arminian "bent" or not. I just think people who want to know the origin of their particular preference in Bible versions should have access to all of the information available.

I still like my KJV Thompson Chain Reference; in fact, the cover is starting to get pretty worn and when it goes completely, I'll probably get another one. For Reformed doctrine, though, appearing in a study Bible, I use the 1599 Geneva; it's one of the major reasons I bought it. It's not perfect, but it's better than most...

Margaret

Margaret....I think ALL of us used the NIV at some point! That was the (second?) translation I bought after my conversion.

Originally Posted by Pilgrim

Some from Arminian backgrounds have alleged that the NIV has a Calvinistic bias. This may be because they are aware of the CRC's role in bringing that translation to fruition.

I have also seen at least one site that claimed that the NKJV is especially good for Wesleyan-Arminians but the author gave no evidence to support this claim.

I use the NKJV and have not noticed any "bias" towards Wesleyan-Arminian, all the good "Calvinist" words are there...

anything but the 1611 KJV

Originally Posted by Pilgrim

Margaret,

Can you give us an example of bias in the Thompson Chain Reference? I don't have one but it has been touted as the most unbiased reference Bible. Also, while it has the chain references, I was not aware that it has "notes".

That's the first one I thought of. A little while ago I was debating on which reference Bible to go with and it seem to have a lot of good reviews so I picked it up only to find that many of helps are from an Arminian point of view.

Originally Posted by jogri17

anything but the 1611 KJV

I have looked at fascimiles of the 1611, but do not own one. I really struggle, I would have a hard time preaching from it. I use the 1873 edition as my trusty companian.

Originally Posted by Backwoods Presbyterian

Originally Posted by Pilgrim

Some from Arminian backgrounds have alleged that the NIV has a Calvinistic bias. This may be because they are aware of the CRC's role in bringing that translation to fruition.

I have also seen at least one site that claimed that the NKJV is especially good for Wesleyan-Arminians but the author gave no evidence to support this claim.

I use the NKJV and have not noticed any "bias" towards Wesleyan-Arminian, all the good "Calvinist" words are there...

I REMBER NOW! The site that makes this claim! Ken Collins, he is a Disciples of Christ Pastor (that was driving me nuts) I exchanged some emails with that dude, I think he is pretty LIBERAL. (Small understatement)

Margaret,

Here's Luke 2 from various texts. Wheich are from the TR and which not and what are te theological differences here?

Thanks

Luke 2:33

The Holy Bible, New International Version®
The child's father and mother marveled at what was said about him.

The King James Version (Authorized)
And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him.

The New King James Version
And Joseph and His mother marveled at those things which were spoken of Him.

The Revised Standard Version
And his father and his mother marveled at what was said about him;

The New Revised Standard Version
And the child's father and mother were amazed at what was being said about him.

Young's Literal Translation
And Joseph and his mother were wondering at the things spoken concerning him,

The Geneva Bible (1587)
And Ioseph and his mother marueiled at those things, which were spoken touching him.

The Latin Vulgate (425)
et erat pater eius et mater mirantes super his quae dicebantur de illo

Holy Bible, English Standard Version
And his father and his mother marveled at what was said about him.


Powered by LightSpeed Technology © 2001-2008, StudyLight.org

Originally Posted by Galatians220

Originally Posted by Pilgrim

Margaret,

Can you give us an example of bias in the Thompson Chain Reference? I don't have one but it has been touted as the most unbiased reference Bible. Also, while it has the chain references, I was not aware that it has "notes".

Oh, the notes that I was referring to in the Thompson Chain Reference are in the prefaces and in the section (doesn't appear to stand alone as one of the official appendices) in the back entitled, "The Origin and Growth of the English Bible" (10th printing, 2002 is what I have). There, it cedes ground and gives the nod as leading to "better Bible versions" in its discussion of the "higher critical text" on pp. 1587-1588. Curiously, it doesn't mention the names of either Fenton John Anthony Hort or Brook Foss Westcott when it discusses the Revised Version of 1881. But that's not surprising to me.

The King James translators' biographies hardly compare to those of Hort and Westcott: The KJV Translators from Translators Revived;
Westcott and Hort. The former were scholars, godly men who were likely regenerate. Westcott and Hort allegedly were members of the Fabian Society: The Nineteenth Century Occult Revival. The Bible versions that followed the Revised Version were also post-Finney and they were never going to have a Reformed slant to them, anyway: The Disturbing Legacy of Charles Finney - Dr. Michael Horton. Reformed doctrine, as mainstream, was on its way downward by the Enlightenment, unfortunately, and things only got worse from then on. We who frequent this board, every one of us, has been peculiarly and specially blessed, and we should never forget it.

For the past decade, I've gone round and round with people on the Bible versions issue. It has been anything but a pleasant experience. Conclusion I've drawn: not going to argue it anymore. People will read the Bible version that the Holy Spirit is leading them to read and it is emphatically not my place to judge or to try to lead them away from their choice. The Lord's ways are higher than ours and He, magnificently, can use anything for good... I am not an officeholder in a church and being female, I can never be one, which is eminently okay with me. I was saved while reading the NIV (one of whose translators was Virginia Mollenkott - ) and I would never denigrate someone else's Bible preference, whether it has an Arminian "bent" or not. I just think people who want to know the origin of their particular preference in Bible versions should have access to all of the information available.

I still like my KJV Thompson Chain Reference; in fact, the cover is starting to get pretty worn and when it goes completely, I'll probably get another one. For Reformed doctrine, though, appearing in a study Bible, I use the 1599 Geneva; it's one of the major reasons I bought it. It's not perfect, but it's better than most...

Margaret

I am not a fan of the NIV and never have been. But my understanding is that Mollenkott was not a translator but was a consultant for English style or something like that.

Originally Posted by etexas

Originally Posted by Backwoods Presbyterian

Originally Posted by Pilgrim

Some from Arminian backgrounds have alleged that the NIV has a Calvinistic bias. This may be because they are aware of the CRC's role in bringing that translation to fruition.

I have also seen at least one site that claimed that the NKJV is especially good for Wesleyan-Arminians but the author gave no evidence to support this claim.

I use the NKJV and have not noticed any "bias" towards Wesleyan-Arminian, all the good "Calvinist" words are there...

I REMBER NOW! The site that makes this claim! Ken Collins, he is a Disciples of Christ Pastor (that was driving me nuts) I exchanged some emails with that dude, I think he is pretty LIBERAL. (Small understatement)

Yes, that is the site. I came across it once a couple of years ago when googling different clerical vestments because he has a page where he models them.

Didn't the RSV used to have "to them that obey God" added to Rom 8:28? That sounds pretty arminian when compaired to the trusty KJV, "to them who are called according to his purpose

Margaret,

I'd be interested to hear what you recently heard about Dr. Hills. And cite the sources, if possible. Perhaps I can clarify. Thanks.

Steve

Originally Posted by Backwoods Presbyterian

I use the NKJV and have not noticed any "bias" towards Wesleyan-Arminian, all the good "Calvinist" words are there...

Please compare NKJV Gen. 4:7; John 17:12; 1 Cor. 1:18, and Heb. 2:16, with AV, and consult relevant traditional reformed commentaries. These are just a few of many examples where the NKJV demonstrates it was not prepared by men of our profession.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Please compare NKJV Gen. 4:7; John 17:12; 1 Cor. 1:18, and Heb. 2:16, with AV, and consult relevant traditional reformed commentaries. These are just a few of many examples where the NKJV demonstrates it was not prepared by men of our profession.

I can certainly see a difference between the AV and the NKJV when it comes to the last two references - 1 Cor 1:18 & Heb 2:16. I never realized that, so thanks for the heads-up.

But I'm having difficulty with Gen 4:7 & John 17:12. Could you go into more detail? Or provide some references I could look into?

Thanks.

Originally Posted by staythecourse

Margaret,

Here's Luke 2 from various texts. Wheich are from the TR and which not and what are te theological differences here?

Thanks

Luke 2:33

The Holy Bible, New International Version®
The child's father and mother marveled at what was said about him.

The King James Version (Authorized)
And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him.

The New King James Version
And Joseph and His mother marveled at those things which were spoken of Him.

The Revised Standard Version
And his father and his mother marveled at what was said about him;

The New Revised Standard Version
And the child's father and mother were amazed at what was being said about him.

Young's Literal Translation
And Joseph and his mother were wondering at the things spoken concerning him,

The Geneva Bible (1587)
And Ioseph and his mother marueiled at those things, which were spoken touching him.

The Latin Vulgate (425)
et erat pater eius et mater mirantes super his quae dicebantur de illo

Holy Bible, English Standard Version
And his father and his mother marveled at what was said about him.


Powered by LightSpeed Technology © 2001-2008, StudyLight.org

Well, my point about that particular verse is that it casts some doubt in unbelievers' minds about who the father of Jesus really was. I've had that point thrown at me by Jews and Gentile atheists and agnostics to whom I've witnessed. I know that you can argue that the KJB and other TR texts spring from the Vulgate (those five years of Latin that I had in Catholic schools were not the complete waste I thought they were, after all - ) - and so what's wrong with keeping to Bible versions that translate that verse as Joseph being called His father? If the KJB rendering is adhered to, though, it makes it easier to witness to unbelievers from John 1:13-14, among many other verses. And any time we can point out that "Scripture interprets Scripture," that's one of the best evangelism tools we have.

As I implied above, I'm not dogmatic about this and I readily concede that I have no personal, academic credentials (only those of a fervent believer) for what I say...

Margaret

In regards to the NKJV and heresy, here are some quotes from the TBS in the Quarterly of Oct 2007 available here: http://www.trinitarianbiblesocietyus...rlyrecord.html

The traditional text reading of John 1.18,
which reads ‘the only begotten Son’, is an
ancient landmark, one set by the Church of
the 4th century when it recovered the
Byzantine text from the authentic copies of
the Scriptures which had been faithfully kept
in the apostolic congregations. The correct
reading of this verse was a powerful engine
against Arius and his heretical arguments
before the Nicene Council.72 Proverbs 22.28
says, ‘Remove not the ancient landmark,
which thy fathers have set’.
In resurrecting the ‘only begotten God’
reading of the corrupt Egyptian text and by
citing it in its margins, the editors of the
New King James Version have in essence
toppled an ancient landmark set up by the
Church. They have allowed a foothold for
heretics to find a haven in their Bible.
‘Remove not the ancient landmark, which
thy fathers have set’.

Luke 23.34: ‘Then said Jesus, Father,
forgive them; for they know not what they
do’. Again, this verse is omitted by
Vaticanus and its allies. Hills believes, with
others (Streeter and Rendel Harris), that
this excision was made by Marcion, who
was anti-Semitic and who would have
opposed Christ’s praying for the Jews.
Again, the New King James enters this
footnote on Luke 23.34: ‘NU-Text
brackets the first sentence as a later
addition’, again with no comment on the
corruptness of the Alexandrian text which
the Nestle-Aland/UBS text uses. So again
the editors of the NKJV would have us to
think that possibly Christ’s prayer on the
cross for His enemies does not belong in
the Holy Writ!

BTW, does anyone know when the next Quarterly comes out? It is supposed to have Part II of this article.

Originally Posted by Pilgrim

I am not a fan of the NIV and never have been. But my understanding is that Mollenkott was not a translator but was a consultant for English style or something like that.

Okay... I've done some research in which most sources describe Virginia Mollenkott as a "literary critic" throughout the translation of the NIV. She was paid a minimal stipend. She did try to make the NIV a little more gay-friendly (see below).

Here's an interview with Dr. Mollenkott in which she states her views that Jesus was not fully God but mostly human, that Scripture is divinely inspired but has been changed by human "invention," etc. God has not given us "a magic book," she states. She also explains that she believes that her lesbianism is not something she can change and so she accepts it and now lives in a "covenanted relationship" with another woman. She rejects the idea that 1 Cor. 6:9 prohibits homosexual behavior and only speaks against "homosexual offenders," i.e., male prostitutes, etc.

She totally repudiates the idea of total depravity...

She gives the impression in this interview that her involvement with the NIV was more than just a sort of glorified "proofreading" task:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmcwJXuwa5U"]YouTube - The NIV, Homosexuality, and Virginia Mollenkott[/ame]

Warning: Long - 47 minutes.

More troublesome, I think, is the charge I've read that Dr. Marten H. Woudstra, chairman of the NIV's Old Testament Translation Committee, was also a homosexual. I'm still looking at that. Dr. Mollenkott's view of the KJV is that it's "beautiful," but she wouldn't use it in practice.

As to research on both Dr. Mollenkott and Dr. Woudstra, I admit to knee-jerk wariness of the fundamentalist, Arminian contributions to the rhetoric and "scholarship" on the issue of their homosexuality and other things as well. For whatever I find that appears to support these conclusions, I try to find as Reformed a source as I can and discount the Arminian contribution.

Margaret

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Originally Posted by Backwoods Presbyterian

I use the NKJV and have not noticed any "bias" towards Wesleyan-Arminian, all the good "Calvinist" words are there...

Please compare NKJV Gen. 4:7; John 17:12; 1 Cor. 1:18, and Heb. 2:16, with AV, and consult relevant traditional reformed commentaries. These are just a few of many examples where the NKJV demonstrates it was not prepared by men of our profession.

I know I was being facetious.

Originally Posted by KMK

In regards to the NKJV and heresy, here are some quotes from the TBS in the Quarterly of Oct 2007 available here: http://www.trinitarianbiblesocietyus...rlyrecord.html

The traditional text reading of John 1.18,
which reads ‘the only begotten Son’, is an
ancient landmark, one set by the Church of
the 4th century when it recovered the
Byzantine text from the authentic copies of
the Scriptures which had been faithfully kept
in the apostolic congregations. The correct
reading of this verse was a powerful engine
against Arius and his heretical arguments
before the Nicene Council.72 Proverbs 22.28
says, ‘Remove not the ancient landmark,
which thy fathers have set’.
In resurrecting the ‘only begotten God’
reading of the corrupt Egyptian text and by
citing it in its margins, the editors of the
New King James Version have in essence
toppled an ancient landmark set up by the
Church. They have allowed a foothold for
heretics to find a haven in their Bible.
‘Remove not the ancient landmark, which
thy fathers have set’.

Luke 23.34: ‘Then said Jesus, Father,
forgive them; for they know not what they
do’. Again, this verse is omitted by
Vaticanus and its allies. Hills believes, with
others (Streeter and Rendel Harris), that
this excision was made by Marcion, who
was anti-Semitic and who would have
opposed Christ’s praying for the Jews.
Again, the New King James enters this
footnote on Luke 23.34: ‘NU-Text
brackets the first sentence as a later
addition’, again with no comment on the
corruptness of the Alexandrian text which
the Nestle-Aland/UBS text uses. So again
the editors of the NKJV would have us to
think that possibly Christ’s prayer on the
cross for His enemies does not belong in
the Holy Writ!

BTW, does anyone know when the next Quarterly comes out? It is supposed to have Part II of this article.

Pastor Klein, apparently it's not out yet: http://www.trinitarianbiblesocietyus...rlyrecord.html

How nice that we can read it online!

Margaret

Originally Posted by Pilgrim

Originally Posted by etexas

Originally Posted by Backwoods Presbyterian

I use the NKJV and have not noticed any "bias" towards Wesleyan-Arminian, all the good "Calvinist" words are there...

I REMBER NOW! The site that makes this claim! Ken Collins, he is a Disciples of Christ Pastor (that was driving me nuts) I exchanged some emails with that dude, I think he is pretty LIBERAL. (Small understatement)

Yes, that is the site. I came across it once a couple of years ago when googling different clerical vestments because he has a page where he models them.

That was cheesy (where he models vestments!) Brethren, it has been a while since I gave his site a check out, BUT if you want some Disciples Of Christ (Libby Lou) Theology check out his page! I do not have a link but just Google: Ken Collins be sure to read his examination of Bibles and take a "gander" at him modeling vestments!

Originally Posted by Jerusalem Blade

Margaret,

I'd be interested to hear what you recently heard about Dr. Hills. And cite the sources, if possible. Perhaps I can clarify. Thanks.

Steve

Steve,

I read on a couple of sites that Hills believed in geocentrism. Here's one of them: Evangelicals and Crackpot Science.

I tend to think that this was just part and parcel of the whole barrel of mud that his critics were throwing at him towards the end of his life, just to see what would stick. Yes, if you can clarify this, I would certainly appreciate it.

Hills's defense of the KJB in Reformed circles and the criticism that it garnered him by his "fellows" in Reformed churches took a tremendous toll on his health, to the extent that his wife later stated that she believed it hastened his death.

I own his books "Believing Bible Study" and "The King James Version Defended" and have given away extra copies when I find and buy them off of E-bay or someplace like that. They're worth the perusal of anyone who tends towards KJV preference and is of the Reformed persuasion...

Margaret

Hello Margaret,

I don't have a copy of Hills' Space Age Science, his book noted in the link you provided, though there is mention of a sort of geocentrism in The King James Version Defended, page 241, last full paragraph (Cf. also pp. 13 ff.). I'm not sure what to think of it, though it does not seem the naïve view of the ignorant.

Another of the geocentrists mentioned in the critique is one Dr. Bouw, whose work is noted in the two links below:

Geocentricity

http://www.geocentricity.com/geocentricity/primer.pdf

I see that Hills was not stupid concerning science, interacted with Einstein's Relativity theory, and was familiar with the advanced physics of his day.

I will have to read a bit and see what this "geocentrism" consists of.

Thanks,

Steve

Originally Posted by Jerusalem Blade

Hello Margaret,

I don't have a copy of Hills' Space Age Science, his book noted in the link you provided, though there is mention of a sort of geocentrism in The King James Version Defended, page 241, last full paragraph (Cf. also pp. 13 ff.). I'm not sure what to think of it, though it does not seem the naïve view of the ignorant.

Another of the geocentrists mentioned in the critique is one Dr. Bouw, whose work is noted in the two links below:

Geocentricity

http://www.geocentricity.com/geocentricity/primer.pdf

I see that Hills was not stupid concerning science, interacted with Einstein's Relativity theory, and was familiar with the advanced physics of his day.

I will have to read a bit and see what this "geocentrism" consists of.

Thanks,

Steve

I would like to see what you come up with Steve, the man was not stupid, look at his education!

Originally Posted by Staphlobob

But I'm having difficulty with Gen 4:7 & John 17:12. Could you go into more detail? Or provide some references I could look into?

I will quote John Knox's Treatise on Predestination for Gen. 4:7. The idea of translating the pronoun "it," so as to refer to sin rather than Abel, was furthered by the free-will Anabaptists, and rejected by the Reformed. On John 17:12 I will quote Thomas Manton's and George Hutcheson's comments in loc. to the effect that the Greek "ei me" construction should be adversative, not exceptive; it refers to a different class, not an exception to the previous class.

John Knox:

Moses saith not, that God promised dominion to Cain over his lusts, but saith, “Unto thee shall his appetites or lusts be, and thou shall bear dominion over him;” which is not spoken of sin, but of Abel, who as he was the younger, so was he appointed to be subject to Cain, and to serve him, and therefore most unjustly did he hate him. It is the same phrase that before was spoken of the woman, concerning her subjection to man. Such as have but mean knowledge in the Hebrew text, know well, that both these articles be of the masculine gender, and the substantive, which signifieth sin in that place, is of the feminine gender; and therefore will not the propriety of the tongue suffer that dominion promised be referred to sin. Where blasphemously ye ask, If God gave Cain no power to subdue his lust, who was the author of his sin? I answer, Cain himself: For he was not like to a dead and insensible sword, as ye adduce the similitude, but he was a reasonable instrument infected by the venom of Satan; from the which he not being purged, could do nothing but serve the Devil and his own lusts, against God’s expressed will and commandment. I have before proved, that God is the cause of no man’s damnation, but sin in which they are fallen is the very cause which all reprobates do find in themselves.

Thomas Manton:

The words are not exceptive, but adversative; none of them is lost, but the son of perdition is lost; the words are not rendered “except the son of perdition,” but, “but the son of perdition;” it is not nisi, but sed. There is no exception made of Judas, as if he had been given to Christ, and afterward had fallen away. It is not nemo nisi filius perditionis [no one except the son of perdition], but when he had mentioned their keeping, he would adversatively put the losing of Judas.

George Hutcheson:

for so saith Christ, there is “but the son of perdition,” which cannot come in here by way of exception, as if the meaning were, I have lost none of them whom thou hast given me, except Judas; for it is clear, from John 6:37, 39, 40, that none of all those the Father gave him shall perish; and Judas was never given to Christ to be redeemed, but only to the office of apostleship; but it comes in by way of opposition (as the original particle is frequently used) to this sense, I have lost none of them thou hast given me; but Judas is lost, or, though Judas be lost.