And how is CB’s rendition of that verse not closer to Calvinism than the ESV?
Exactly what is the problem with it?
I think you missed the point. CB was correcting BB by underscoring a word that does not exist in the original manuscript. He (and you) claim that you NEVER EVER rely on the interpretations of men and that you only rely on scripture, but you fail to realize that each and every word in your English Bible is an interpretation of some word or phrase or an interpolation of some word that is implied and is not the original manuscript. To make matters worse for you, if you have studied biblical hermenutics, you would know that many of the original manuscripts vary on certain words and phrases and that the words or phrases that are finally determined to be good enough for inclusion in a translation are the words and phrases that the committee of translators voted to include.
If you want to say that you believe only the scriptures, then not only would you have to be fluent in the original languages, but you would also have to have in your hand the original autograph of the gospels and the letters and the scrolls so that there would be no doubt that what you were relying upon was the actual inspired word of God.
What we have in every translation is, like ourselves, something that is not perfect.
Exactly what is the problem with it?
You tell me. He quoted the KJV which uses the word "OF". You referred me to the ESV as the source of all truth and the ESV uses "IN". Which one do you believe is correct? Which of the two versions is "scripture" and which is just the interpretations of men?