Why was the church of england prayer book re-written?
930295
The Book of Common Prayer has been revised a number of times in its history. The first one of 1549 was almost the Roman Catholic Mass in English. This was changed 3 years later under Edward VI and again under Elizabeth I and Charles I. The last revision went before parliament in 1928 but was rejected on the grounds that it had become "too Catholic" (seeing as the Church of England is the official Catholic Church this is a strange irony).Since then, the Anglican Church whilst still  officially retaining the Common Prayer Book, is more likely to use the alternative book of Common Worship. In this Book, the celebration of the Eucharist is more in keeping with the original book of Common Prayer and more akin to the Roman Catholic celebration of the Eucharist. Allegiance to the 39 Articles is no longer compulsory for new priests. Everything goes full circle in the end!
300429
It is not. Back then, each copy of the Bible had to be handwritten when they were reproduced. This means the scribes had free will to add/change anything they wanted. Also the Bible was translated from Greek and Hebrew to English. So its changed a lot, because there are no originals in existence. KJV went through the hands of countless scribes before being translated.  Even the dead sea scrolls are not the originals, just really old, close to original copies. And no, they're not in English
135728
sure go to CCEL.ORG click on executable outlines over 1200 sermons in thier entirety. You must read and improve or deleate areas you disagree with For a man wrote them and as such no one is perfect. But you can find some awesome sermons there .\nI will share this one with you .after some changes to fit the church here I gave this as a series of three lessons.the following is where I found this awesome work on prayer.   http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=846\n\nPrayer and Unconfessed Sin\nIn my travels, I usually try to read the church ads appearing in Saturday's newspaper. On one occasion, a minister announced as his sermon title, "When Praying Is Sinful."\n\nI started to do some serious thinking about that topic. I asked myself the question, Is it ever wrong to pray? Now, I have no idea how that minister dealt with his subject, but I am convinced that there might be occasions when praying at least does not make sense.\n\nIt does not make sense to pray for anything if there is unconfessed sin in the heart.\n\nIf I regard iniquity in my heart, the Lord will not hear me (Ps 66:18).\n\nSin unconfessed and unforgiven hinders prayer. Many a prayer bounces off the roof of the mouth, never rising any higher, for this reason. It is impossible for any Christian to experience a successful and fruitful prayer ministry if the sin question is not faced squarely.\n\nThis is not to suggest that God demands sinless perfection before He will answer our prayers. If that were the case, none of us would have our requests granted. But we do know that sin in a believer's life breaks that sweet fellowship between himself and God.\n\nHe that covereth his sins shall not prosper; but whoso confesseth and forsaketh them shall have mercy (Pr 28:13).\n\nAmong the children of Israel, there were those who believed that God no longer answered prayer. They were saying "He answered prayer in Elijah's day, but He isn't doing it now. His arm is no longer mighty; His ear has become dull of hearing." But the prophet Isaiah said,\n\nBehold, the Lord's hand is not shortened, that it cannot save; neither his ear heavy, that it cannot hear: But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you that he will not hear (Is 59:1-2).\n\nThe prophet was saying, "Don't blame God because He refuses to give you your requests. His power to save has not lessened; He is not losing his hearing. God never changes. He still wills that all men be saved, and His hearing is as keen as ever. He can hear the faintest cry of His weakest child. You are responsible for God's silence. The blame rests with you, not with God. Those sins you have not repented of have cut the lifeline of prayer. You raised the barrier between God and yourselves, and He will not answer you until you confess and forsake your sins."\n\nOur churches could do with prophets like Isaiah, men who will tell it like it is, not fearing to expose sin. Not often do we hear men of God tell us that God hates worship and praying which are phony. It is brazen presumption which dares to ask anything of God while sin is in the heart. And if anyone feels I am putting it too strongly, then read the following verses:\n\nBring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto me; the new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; it is iniquity, even the solemn meeting. Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hateth; they are a trouble unto me; I am weary to bear them. And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you: yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear: your hands are full of blood (Is 1:13-15).\n\nThose are God's words, directed to His own people. Has it ever occurred to you that God hates sham in worship and prayers? That is right, God can and does hate. He tells His people they are wasting their time going through religious forms and ceremonies when the
429594
It is pretty far removed from the original scrolls. In much earlier days, the clergy were the only ones who could read and write, so the ppl had to come to church to learn the bible from them. Then, the clergy started reinterpreting things to their own benefit. I think there is a line about every man should have an acre of land, but every clergyman should have 100 square acres. Stuff like that makes it hard to believe any of the rest of the doctored text.  \n\nOr, in that show that's on right now about the lost Gospel of Judas, they talk about censorship there as well, where things that don't fit with what the people in power want didn't make it into the next rendition.
889190
The original was published in 1859 in London, England.  But, what copy are you using?  If you used the Internet as research, you can cite the website you used.
768122
I have seen the Lord's Prayer in the Bible in the Book of Matthew (Chapter 6 verse 9 - 13) when Jesus taught His first disciples how to pray.\nI say the Lord's prayer every morning before I start my day. \nYhe Lord's prayer is a universal prayer and not restricted to one denomination. It is accessible to everyone and it's free!!!
481759
If you are referring to the song, then it was originally recorded by the Monotones.\n\nIf you mean a book, then it's claimed that the Apostle John wrote the book of love for the bible.
754533
Prayer.  Repetitive prayer.
62059
http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/\n\nI like how you said "Now that there are different versions of the book." Welcome to the 16th century.
463231
Its another fake Gospel written by an early christian sect who obviously had no contact with Jesus, the disciples or the disciples followers. It was common for christian sects with no direct link to church founders to create bogus gospels to support there beliefs.\nIf the gospel is real it would have been mentioned somewhere in the ancient history or copies of it would have surfaced elsewhere. Not to mention a true gospel always matches with what the rest of the bible says.\nPeople have a bad habit of thinking if a text is old then it must be a part of Gods word.  This is not true!
1083945
There is only one Bible but many translations so that people will understand Gods saving grace easilly. Different translations but the same saving gospel, the same God and Jesus amd messages and they are certainly not against each other, by assuming that it is against each other I'm also assuming that you didn't researched enough to see ig this notion is true. Do you agree that even ur Quran has been translated to english so engish speaking muslims can understand it? It's the same purpose as to why the Bible has many translations.
349249
They have changed very little since the first century.  Their services are still based upon services left by James or Mark and both of those services are used upon occaision.  Their hymns tend to come from the first century so don't expect any "Amazing Grace," type hymns.  If you want to see that "old time religion," attend either an Orthodox or Catholic service.  You will see what original Christianity looked like.
655811
There is no "new" gospel.  Scripture was canonized by God's sovereignty.  Revelation 22:18 might be of interest to anyone claiming they have found "new" writings.  ("...If any man shall ADD unto these words, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book")
338774
Because they think it's God Sent, it has hundreds of errors, and it was not the first Bible printed in English, it just happen to have King James backing.  It's long, feel like I just wrote a novel\n.\nPeople in the English-speaking world use and accept the King James or Authorized Version than any other single Bible translation. In fact, so highly esteemed is this translation that many persons venerate it as the only true Bible. This raises some questions.\n\nDo these countless persons who use the King James Version know why, despite objections from churchmen, modern translations keep rolling off the presses? Do they know why the King James Version itself was once opposed by the people? Do they know why, despite vigorous protest and opposition, the King James Version entered into the very blood and marrow of English thought and speech? Do they know what illuminating document is probably missing from their own copies? In short, do they really know the King James Version?\n\nThe purpose of Bible translation, then, is to take these thoughts of God, originally written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, and put them into the common languages of today. Bible translation makes God’s Book a living Book. So true Christians read the Bible, not to be entertained by clever turns of expression, unusual words, excellency of style, striking rhetorical devices or felicities of rhythm, but to learn the will of God. It was for this reason that the King James Version came into existence. That was in 1611.\nFrom almost every quarter the King James Bible met opposition. Criticism was often severe. Broughton, a Hebrew scholar of the day, wrote to King James that he “should rather be torn asunder by wild horses than allow such a version to be imposed on the church.”\n\nThe translators, not unaware that people preferred to keep what had grown familiar, knew that their work had unleashed a storm. They tried to calm the people down. They wrote a “Preface of the Translators” to explain why the King James Version was made. This preface is called by the Encyclopedia Americana “a most illuminating preface describing the aims of the translators which unhappily is omitted from the usual printings of the Bible.” Thus most Authorized Versions today, though they contain a lengthy dedication to King James, omit the preface. Its presence would clear up many misunderstandings about the purpose of the revision. The reader would learn that strong opposition was expected.\n\nThe reader would learn that the King James Version was a revision of earlier works made with a modest hope of improvement and no thought of finality, In time the clamor died down, and the King James Version prevailed over the Geneva Bible. For more than two and a half centuries no other so-called authorized translation of the Bible into English was made. Little wonder that many people began to feel that the King James Bible was the only true Bible. Like many people who once objected to any change in the Geneva Bible, many persons today object to any change in the King James Bible. They oppose modern translations perhaps as vigorously as the King James Version itself was once opposed.\n\nKing James Bible has already been changed; today no one reads the King James Version in its original form. Explaining why this is so the book The Bible in Its Ancient and English Versions says: “Almost every edition, from the very beginning, introduced corrections and unauthorized changes and additions, often adding new errors in the process. The edition of 1613 shows over three hundred differences from 1611. . . . It was in the eighteenth century, however, that the main changes were made. . . . The marginal references were checked and verified, over 30,000 new marginal references were added, the chapter summaries and running headnotes were thoroughly revised, the punctuation was altered and made uniform in accordance with modern practice, textual errors were removed, the use of capitals wa
1024989
Is been revised too many times to please the founding fathers of the catholic church. I think the Gospels ancient writtings that are being discovered recently will shed much information missing from the new testament.
1033901
As noted, King James did not write a Bible, he authorized a new translation.  The project began in 1604, and was published in 1611.  It is largely a refinement of Tyndale's translation by reference to the oldest available manuscripts of the time.  Speciifically, it ignored the Vulgate used by Catholics.  54 scholars were involved in the project.\n\nThe primary purpose of this new translations was to eliminate the sectarian bias that existed is the several English language translations then in use.
1141971
I read a book not too many years ago about the life of George Mueller.  One thing that struck me was that he kept a record of his prayers.  He would record the prayer request, then leave a space for the answer.  He would pray continually until he received an answer to that prayer.\n\nFour years ago, I began keeping a journal just like he did, and as I learned that the kinds of prayers God answered the most (or the best) were those for or about others and their needs.  Yes, even many of my selfish ones were answered.  Even now, I can point to a record that shows clearly what prayers have been answered, and those that still have gone unanswered.  I have 7 unanswered prayers right now, four of which are from years prior to 2006.  God has been so faithful in answering prayer.  The ones unanswered are all recent prayers, beginning in the month of May, not including those prior to 2006.\n\nIt has been a wonderful blessing to see my history of prayer with God, and even when He has answered "no," He has made up for any disappointment I've had by doing something different/better.