When the RSV became ANATHEMA: Useless UPCI trivia

[DAII]

In 1953, THE REVISED STANDARD VERSION was effectively banned from usage by the UPCI and the King James Version proclaimed the most accurate translation to be used by UPCI congregations and its people:

Adopted by the General Conference in 1953

Inasmuch as the United Pentecostal Church believes in the inspiration of the holy Scriptures, given to us by holy men of God who spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost, and [inasmuch as] we believe the Scriptures to be the Word of God given to us by divine authority,

We hereby declare our position regarding the new translation of the Bible in modern speech known as the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, copyrighted by the National Council of Churches in America:

Whereas upon examining the Revised Standard Version of the Bible we find [that] many [passages concerning] the fundamentals of our Christian faith and doctrine have been changed and are very misleading, namely, the virgin birth of Christ, remission of sins as taught in the New Testament, the deity of Christ, and other truths, and

Whereas a majority of the committee of translators themselves, according to their associations, connections and records, are [shown] to be modernist and liberal scholars who do not believe or embrace the revealed truths of God's holy Word, including the plan of God's salvation, . . .

Be it therefore resolved that the United Pentecostal Church International declare its disapproval of the Revised Standard Version of the Bible,

copyrighted by the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A.
Be it further resolved that we continue to accept the King James Version of the Bible as the most accurate translation of the Scriptures to be used in our churches and among our people.

I find this very interesting in light of the many of the arguments that led to this ban ...

Rev. MJ Wolff, of Illinois, contended for its rejection, in his 1953 Pentecostal Herald article "The New Bible" ... among his arguments were:

- The translators of this "book" were not God-called men or inspired by the Holy Spirit. *** I gues the KJV translators were?***

- Accusatory claims that the translators were "modernists" who were also "liberal" "Communist sympathizers". *** McCarthyism permeates the org! ****

- Among the egregious or drastic changes of "this book" that are 'unacceptable to "true" Christianity' .... is Acts 2:38 changed to "Repent, be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the "forgiveness" of your sins:"

*** Gasp! Remission changed to forgiveness like it says in the original Greek "aphesis" ... or the NIV, ESV, ASV, NASB, et al. ***

- Adding to interpretation. In one breathe, Wolff shows contempt for the elimination of italics by the RSV translators while criticizing the addition of quotation marks by RSV writers ... As with Jesus in John 3:16. *** you got to be kidding me !!! *****

- The changing "virgin" to "young woman" as a automatic rejection of the virgin birth *****this is a commonly held translation, today and by Hebrew scholars that does nothing to change the fact that Mary had not known her husband". *****


Source: http://www.1stapostolic.org/PDF/Pent...rald195311.pdf
-------------------------------------------------

I find this as just another example of a position that needs to be taken off the books just because it's outdated and almost irrelevant ... as for the most part many of these objections and changes are found in the NIV and other translations commonly used ....

What happens when a minister inadvertently quotes from this translation or a similar translation?

Another major objection of Wolf , in 1953, was that Mark 16:9-20 is footnoted in the RSV as to not being found in original manuscripts ... but most translations today have a similar footnote.

I think that this resolution is also just another example of the radicalism that would grip the org during AT Morgan's administration ... Later in 1954, the holiness dress standards and TV prohibition are added to the Holiness article .... Perhaps this radicalism and displays of fire-brand conservatism are indeed reflective of the McCarthyism of the era and a successful coup of those with roots from the Conservative Holiness movement within the org.

It hurts theological credibility, imo.

Also noteworthy is that the New Revised Standard Version has since been published, in 1989.

[freeatlast]

Interesting..... I find that many of the "changes" that some have screamed about in the RSV NIV etc. actually give a clearer more definitive meaning of the actual originl text than did the KJV.

We do have one "hold out" in our congregation, that gets upset if any other than the KJV is used in the reading of the text or in the hand outs teachers use in the Adult SS class.

It's amazing that you'd find people like that among us today ;-)

[Barb]

Originally Posted by DAII

In 1953, THE REVISED STANDARD VERSION was effectively banned from usage by the UPCI and the King James Version proclaimed the most accurate translation to be used by UPCI congregations and its people:

Adopted by the General Conference in 1953



I find this very interesting in light of the many of the arguments that led to this ban ...

Rev. MJ Wolff, of Illinois, contended for its rejection, in his 1953 Pentecostal Herald article "The New Bible" ... among his arguments were:

- The translators of this "book" were not God-called men or inspired by the Holy Spirit. *** I gues the KJV translators were?***

- Accusatory claims that the translators were also modernists who were also "liberal, Communist sympathizers". *** McCarthyism permeates the org! ****

- Among the egregious or drastic changes of "this book" that are 'unacceptable to "true" Christianity' .... is Acts 2:38 changed to "Repent, be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the "forgiveness" of your sins:"

*** Gasp! Remission changed to forgiveness like it says in the original Greek "aphesis" ... or the NIV, ESV, ASV, NASB, et al. ***


Source: http://www.1stapostolic.org/PDF/Pent...rald195311.pdf
-------------------------------------------------

I find this as just another example of a position that needs to be taken off the books just because it's outdated and almost irrelevant ... as for the most part many of these objections and changes are found in the NIV and other translations commonly used ....

What happens when a minister inadvertently quotes from this translation or a similar translation?

Another major objection of Wolf , in 1953, was that Mark 16:9-20 is footnoted in the RSV as to not being found in original manuscripts ... but most translations today have a similar footnote.

I think that this resolution is another example of the radicalism that would grip the org during AT Morgan's administration ... Later in 1954, the holiness dress standards and TV prohibition are added to the Holiness article .... Perhaps this radicalism and displays of fire-brand conservatism are indeed reflective of the McCarthyism of the era and a successful coup of those with roots from the Conservative Holiness movement within the org.

Also noteworthy is that the New Revised Standard Version has since been published, in 1989.

Incorrect information, Daniel...

I am 58 years old, Oneness Pentecostal born and bred. Our church, as well as the churches in this area, have LONG held the "holiness dress standards" of which you speak.

Further, Wesleyans, Pilgrim Holiness, Church of God, Assemblies of God and others held this view LONG before the UPCI was incorporated.

Whether or not they were in the actual Articles of Faith before 1954, I cannot say, however...I am sure with your diligence in researching every bit of inconsistency in the org, you will find the answer. *sigh*

[DAII]

Originally Posted by Barb

Incorrect information, Daniel...

I am 58 years old, Oneness Pentecostal born and bred. Our church, as well as the churches in this area, have LONG held the "holiness dress standards" of which you speak.

Further, Wesleyans, Pilgrim Holiness, Church of God, Assemblies of God and others held this view LONG before the UPCI was incorporated.

Whether or not they were in the actual Articles of Faith before 1954, I cannot say, however...I am sure with your diligence in researching every bit of inconsistency in the org, you will find the answer. *sigh*

Barbara, the original Holiness article of the AOF of the UPCI was amended in 1954 ... I am well aware that these standards come from the Conservative Wesleyan Holiness movement and crept into many pulpits of Pentecost after Asuza .... but the Holiness Article at the merger was the one in the PCI manual that did not codify a clothes line list or a prohibition on dances, theater, cut hair, makeup, jewelry or TV but rather mainly quoted Scripture ... in practicality, leaving applications of Holiness in the hands of the local pastor.

My quote refers to the conservative fervor that grips the org ... after the ousting of Goss ... may also be a microcosm of what was happening in the halls of Congress against Communism and liberalism ....

There is a paradigm shift about to happen in many areas of life and culture during this time that is combatted by reactionary politics ... and sometimes with irrational extremism .... while we were on the brink of the cultural and political liberalism of th 1960's

I respectfully tell you to look at the record.

[DAII]

Barbara, you can read resolution 9 on page 6 of this 1954 Pentecostal Herald issue that shares the resolution that added the paragraph on standards to the Holiness article which had pre-existed for 9 years since the merger ... and in the PCI, prior:

http://www.1stapostolic.org/PDF/Pent...rald195411.pdf

You will find very little, or next to nothing, about various positions on holiness standards in the Herald issues circa 1945-52 ... you will probably find more articles on the varying views on the New Birth than you will about standards.

This changes with the election of Morgan.

Morgan expresses concern of the use of makeup and cut hair in the orgs ranks in his 1953 GC message before the passage of the 1954 resolution the following year.

Morgan states: "Occassionally we see the our Pentecostal girls are cutting their hair and painting their faces just like the world."
(Page 14, http://www.1stapostolic.org/PDF/Pent...rald195311.pdf)

Earlier that year, David Gray Sr. publishes in the Herald excerpts of standards from his mother's Methodist Book of Disciplines recommending that the reader substitute "Pentecostal" everytime they read "Methodist". Ironically and seemingly in contradiction to Methodist and OP tradition, years previously, his sister, Olive, is photographed in her pearl necklace.

(Source: http://www.1stapostolic.org/PDF/Pent...rald195302.pdf)

[DAII]

More on the "Communist" plague ....

Ironically, in the UPCI resolutions of 1954 (resolution 11) ... you will find one that is passed asking then Secretary of the US, Dulles, and members of the US gov't to speak to then President of Colombia, Rojas Pinilla, to stop accusing Protestant missionaries, namely the UPCIs, of supporting Communism ... since Protestants are "most definitely" not communists and the UPCI was having great revival in Colombia but being persecuted by many of the nationals ....

while also implying in the same resolution to remind him.... that it was communists in Catholic European countries of France and Italy that led to the Spanish civil war ... which if memory serves was more about fascism than communism.

The Communist label was the worst thing you could throw at any group, individual or organization during the early 1950's during the birth of the Cold War ... which may explain why the same body of ministers accuses the RSV translators of being Communist sympathizers ... and among the reasons to reject this biblical translation.

Source: (http://www.1stapostolic.org/PDF/Pent...rald195411.pdf .... pages 6,7)

[Barb]

Originally Posted by DAII

Barbara, the original Holiness article of the AOF of the UPCI was amended in 1954 ... I am well aware that these standards come from the Conservative Wesleyan Holiness movement and crept into many pulpits of Pentecost after Asuza .... but the Holiness Article at the merger was the one in the PCI manual that did not codify a clothes line list or a prohibition on dances, theater, cut hair, makeup, jewelry or TV but rather mainly quoted Scripture ... in practicality, leaving applications of Holiness in the hands of the local pastor.

My quote refers to the conservative fervor that grips the org ... after the ousting of Goss ... may also be a microcosm of what was happening in the halls of Congress against Communism and liberalism ....

There is a paradigm shift about to happen in many areas of life and culture during this time that combatted by reactionary politics ... and sometimes with irrational extremism .... while we were on the brink of the cultural and political liberalism of th 1960's

I respectfully tell you to look at the record.

Originally Posted by DAII

Barbara, you can read resolution 9 on page 6 of this 1954 Pentecostal Herald issue that shares the resolution that added the paragraph on standards to the Holiness article which had pre-existed for 9 years since the merger ... and in the PCI:

http://www.1stapostolic.org/PDF/Pent...rald195411.pdf

You will find very little about various positions on holiness standards in the Herald issues circa 1945-52 ... you will find probably more articles on the varying views on the New Birth than you will about standards.

This changes with the election of Morgan.

Thank you for the links...when I get to feeling a little better I will take the time to carefully study them.

I do have a question for you, and I ask this as respectfully as you have always treated me in these discussions...

Is there anything you could share with on the World Wide Web that would be of a positive note for the United Pentecostal Church, International?

Trust me when I say, this is not asked because I think the organization is perfect in all it's ways.

I could keep your attention all afternoon by telling you just what I think is wrong with the org, and how they have erred in judgment in many areas.

But I am wondering, as you seem to be the most frequent opponent of the UPCI on AFF of late, is there anything at all you find redeeming in this body of believers?

Or are all of your postings merely for information sake?

And hon, you may call me Barb...

[Sam]

I'm old enough to remember some of the furor surrounding the RSV back in the nineteen fifties. Two things I remember seeing in either a newspaper or news magazine were: One minister holding a blowtorch to the RSV and saying, "It's like the devil, it's hard to burn." Another was an account of a minister having a tub of lye on his platform and publicly dropping a RSV Bible into it. I don't remember the denominations of these ministers but I think they were Baptist.

There are still some conservative ministers and churches who are against any type of translation except the King James Version.

I remember a problem at our house one time when my wife bought a Bible for one of our kids. This was back around 1970 or 1971. She brought home a RSV Bible by mistake. The only solution I could see was to throw the Bible away for two reasons: 1) I certainly did not want any child of mine reading a RSV Bible and 2) If she took it back and exchanged it for a KJV, someone else might buy that RSV Bible. Best to destroy it so nobody else would get it.

I also took a strong stand against what became The Living Bible. It was published in phases and some of the epistles came out as "Living Letters." Of course these were wrong because they differed from the KJV. I remember being in a Bible Study group and someone called The Living Bible a translation. I quickly corrected him and said it was not a translation but just a paraphrase. When he disagreed, I asked him to look inside the front of his Living Bible and in front of the group I very self-righteously asked him to read the word "Paraphrased." He was a lot better Christian than I.

I no longer believe that way about the NIV (which I've called the Non Inspired Version) or The New Living Translation or the NRSV and the other newer ones. I believe the originals were inspired or God-breathed and that what we have today are just attempts to give us what the originals said.

I personally prefer the KJV and the NKJV but that is probably an age thing. Also I like it that they use the TR or Textus Receptus as a basis and not Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus which are suspect to some.

[DAII]

Originally Posted by Sam

I'm old enough to remember some of the furor surrounding the RSV back in the nineteen fifties. Two things I remember seeing in either a newspaper or news magazine were: One minister holding a blowtorch to the RSV and saying, "It's like the devil, it's hard to burn." Another was an account of a minister having a tub of lye on his platform and publicly dropping a RSV Bible into it. I don't remember the denominations of these ministers but I think they were Baptist.

There are still some conservative ministers and churches who are against any type of translation except the King James Version.

I remember a problem at our house one time when my wife bought a Bible for one of our kids. This was back around 1970 or 1971. She brought home a RSV Bible by mistake. The only solution I could see was to throw the Bible away for two reasons: 1) I certainly did not want any child of mine reading a RSV Bible and 2) If she took it back and exchanged it for a KJV, someone else might but that RSV Bible. Best to destroy it so nobody else would get it.

I also took a strong stand against what became The Living Bible. It was published in phases and some of the epistles came out as "Living Letters." Of course these were wrong because they differed from the KJV. I remember being in a Bible Study group and someone called The Living Bible a translation. I quickly corrected him and said it was not a translation but just a paraphrase. When he disagreed, I asked him to look inside the front of his Living Bible and in front of the group I very self-righteously asked him to read the word "Paraphrased." He was a lot better Christian than I.

I no longer believe that way about the NIV (which I've called the Non Inspired Version) or The New Living Translation or the NRSV and the other newer ones. I believe the originals were inspired or God-breathed and that what we have today are just attempts to give us what the originals said.

I personally prefer the KJV and the NKJV but that is probably an age thing. Also I like it that they use the TR or Textus Receptus as a basis and not Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus which are suspect to some.

You gotta love RADICALISM.

[Nitehawk013]

Many more than simply the UPC dislike the Reviled Substandard Perversion.