Misspelling Acts 3:7

Have you found a bug or you think that the program does not function as expected? Report it here
hsinc1
Posts: 2
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2020 6:31 pm

Misspelling Acts 3:7

Post by hsinc1 »

Acts 3:7 And he took him by the right hand, and lifted him up: and immediately his feet and ancle bones received strength.
Should be
Acts 3:7 And he took him by the right hand, and lifted him up: and immediately his feet and ankle bones received strength.

ancle > ankle
User avatar
JG
Posts: 4338
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 8:34 pm

Re: Misspelling Acts 3:7

Post by JG »

There are different spellings of this word, so it is fine in this module.
Jon
the
Word 6 Bible Software
OS for testing; Windows 10
Beta Download ------Beta Setup Guide------On-line Manual------Tech doc's and Utilities------Copyright Factsheet
hsinc1
Posts: 2
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2020 6:31 pm

Re: Misspelling Acts 3:7

Post by hsinc1 »

Sorry, I meant to edit this but had to wait til the POST was approved.

This was in the authorized KJV Module. I checked against E-Sword and a printed copy.
When I read the verse this morn for devotions, the word popped out as not spelled right.

Some folks I know are verbal purists and though the word MAY be spelled in other ways, I hold to my POST, in this module - verse, it is misspelled.

But thanks anyway.
mathetes
Posts: 333
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 6:08 pm

Re: Misspelling Acts 3:7

Post by mathetes »

That is the correct spelling as found in the 1769 KJV edition and the circa 1900 KJV Cambridge edition.
malayangbiblia
Posts: 74
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2018 9:27 am
Location: Philippines
Contact:

Re: Misspelling Acts 3:7

Post by malayangbiblia »

There seems to be a regular update on the KJV text. When I checked on the Trinitarian Bible Society website, they are using a 2019.1.10 date AV text on their online Bible that's published on 2019.10.15. KJV Bibles recently published have "ankle" instead of "ancle" based on what's out there in the internet and several KJV books I have. So, its not clear when or how much changes they did with the spellings in the past century, but this is one good example of those.

It's good, though, to have the original version of 1611 as a point of reference which uses "ancle."
Edmund
Post Reply