PDA

View Full Version : God created a Great Sea Monster????????



coldfire136
Jan 9th 2008, 08:24 PM
As most of you know, I am of the opinion that the creation stories must be read within the context of the ancient near east and their traditions. Any attempt to try and make the document "scientific" or "historical" is to go further than where I believe the ancient Hebrews of the near east would have taken it. The primary understanding of Genesis must be theological, cultural, and anthropological. We must consider the words carefully, and I am starting a thread here for the discussion of the "great sea monster" that God created on the fifth day (1:21). The KJV (mistakenly) translates it "great whales" to try and make up for the seemingly "mythological" etymology that the term carries. The Hebrew is tanniyn and is translated in other places (even in the KJV) as "serpent" (Ex. 7:9,10,11; Deu 32:33 translated "dragon"; if you do a word study you will find that most of the Prophetic literature also translated it "dragon" in the KJV). So why did the KJV translate it "whale" here.

It is my belief (and please correct me if you know more about the KJV translation than I do) that the authors were attempting to push enlightenment thinking on the creation narrative. Because God created dragons or great sea monsters seemed to "mythological," the authors of the translation changed it. Why is this so serious? Because most American readers don't know Hebrew or Greek, and they would gloss over the nuance like it was nothing. If there are mythological elements in the creation story, why do we try to hide them behind bad translations? These are important questions we must ask ourselves as we continue our talks on these boards about things like the aspects of history apparent in Genesis.

What does everyone think in this regard?

fightingfalcon
Jan 9th 2008, 08:30 PM
As most of you know, I am of the opinion that the creation stories must be read within the context of the ancient near east and their traditions. Any attempt to try and make the document "scientific" or "historical" is to go further than where I believe the ancient Hebrews of the near east would have taken it. The primary understanding of Genesis must be theological, cultural, and anthropological. We must consider the words carefully, and I am starting a thread here for the discussion of the "great sea monster" that God created on the fifth day (1:21). The KJV (mistakenly) translates it "great whales" to try and make up for the seemingly "mythological" etymology that the term carries. The Hebrew is tanniyn and is translated in other places (even in the KJV) as "serpent" (Ex. 7:9,10,11; Deu 32:33 translated "dragon"; if you do a word study you will find that most of the Prophetic literature also translated it "dragon" in the KJV). So why did the KJV translate it "whale" here.

It is my belief (and please correct me if you know more about the KJV translation than I do) that the authors were attempting to push enlightenment thinking on the creation narrative. Because God created dragons or great sea monsters seemed to "mythological," the authors of the translation changed it. Why is this so serious? Because most American readers don't know Hebrew or Greek, and they would gloss over the nuance like it was nothing. If there are mythological elements in the creation story, why do we try to hide them behind bad translations? These are important questions we must ask ourselves as we continue our talks on these boards about things like the aspects of history apparent in Genesis.

What does everyone think in this regard?


The KJV writers were not trying to push anything... and to state something like that without proof is not very nice...

There are many words in the bible mis-interpreted like this but as in this case they are not threatening our relationship with God... I mean if you believe it is a great beast and I believe it is a whale, it will not effect our eternal relationship with God or if we are saved or not.

This could very well be an animal we do not know of, a dinosaur like creation??? Again I don't really think it matters a whole lot.

Buck shot
Jan 9th 2008, 08:40 PM
As for me and my house, I will never be a part of admitting any flaw in the KJV! This is the rock I have built my house on. I beleive all other ground is sinking sand. I also know that the translaters used the word dragon in many other places so they were not afraid of using something they had not seen or try to push a view. Their lives depended on an accurate interpretation. They were not out to publish a new book.

If you are truly interested in a good study of creation you should check out this website. www.answersingenesis.org (http://www.answersingenesis.org)

coldfire136
Jan 9th 2008, 08:49 PM
While I applaud your efforts and your passion Buckshot, I place my faith in Jesus Christ, NOT the Bible.

coldfire136
Jan 9th 2008, 08:52 PM
There are many words in the bible mis-interpreted like this but as in this case they are not threatening our relationship with God... I mean if you believe it is a great beast and I believe it is a whale, it will not effect our eternal relationship with God or if we are saved or not.

I don't wish this thread to deteriorate into a discussion on salvation. The reason this is so important is because the KJV writers picked a word, usually translated as dragon in other places, and made it "whale" because the word "dragon" seems too mythological. Do you agree or disagree with THIS point. I don't wish to discuss other points. There are plenty of discussions going on in other places about "salvation." I think that this word actually IS important in our understanding of the creation narrative.

teddyv
Jan 9th 2008, 09:00 PM
Coldfire, are you looking at the translation to possibly refer to the "Leviathan" as in Job?

Buck shot
Jan 9th 2008, 09:25 PM
MY FAITH IS ALSO IN JESUS, YOU KNOW THE "WORD" THAT BECAME FLESH! (Chapter 1 of John)

I also am not trying to offend you but you should not need to bash translators because you have a question about why a word was translated that way. I also wonder about why "Tanniyn" was translated as whale but do not question them. Yes, I did look it up. I do have a Doctorate in Theology and spent a lot time studying the translators and their way of life during the translation. They were the most educated and dedicated people of their day and this is why they were appointed to the task. They did not just get together and decide, "lets see if we can change history".

Clifton
Jan 9th 2008, 10:56 PM
Leviathan \\See Definition 03882 (http://net.bible.org/strong.php?id=03882)\\
Dragon \\See Definition 08577 (http://net.bible.org/strong.php?id=08577)\\
Dinosaur \\See Definition 0930 (http://net.bible.org/strong.php?id=0930)\\
Whale \\See Definition 08565 (http://net.bible.org/strong.php?id=08565)\\03882 (http://net.bible.org/strong.php?id=03882)
# Job 3:8 41:1
# Ps 74:14 104:26
# Isa 27:1

08577 (http://net.bible.org/strong.php?id=08577)
# Ge 1:21
# Ex 7:9,10,12
# De 32:33
# Ne 2:13
# Job 7:12 30:29
# Ps 44:19 74:13 91:13 148:7
# Isa 13:22 27:1 34:13 35:7 43:20 51:9
# Jer 9:11 10:22 14:6 49:33 51:34,37
# La 4:3
# Eze 29:3 32:2
# Mic 1:8

0930 (http://net.bible.org/strong.php?id=0930)
# Job 40:15

08565 (http://net.bible.org/strong.php?id=08565)
# Ezek 32:2

Formatted for Online Bible Personal Topics.

Clifton
Jan 9th 2008, 11:00 PM
As for me and my house, I will never be a part of admitting any flaw in the KJV! This is the rock I have built my house on. I beleive all other ground is sinking sand. I also know that the translaters used the word dragon in many other places so they were not afraid of using something they had not seen or try to push a view. Their lives depended on an accurate interpretation. They were not out to publish a new book.

If you are truly interested in a good study of creation you should check out this website. www.answersingenesis.org (http://www.answersingenesis.org)


Another one as well:

http://www.icr.org/

I have had some of their texts for about 15 years - amazing stuff.

Gulah Papyrus
Jan 10th 2008, 04:54 AM
As for me and my house, I will never be a part of admitting any flaw in the KJV!

Well for starters...

Psalm 8:2 - Out of the mouths of babes and sucklings hast thou ordained 'strength(?)' because of thine enemies that thou mightest still the enemy and the avenger.

Strength? or should it be "praise'?

Mathew 21:16 And Jesus said unto them "Yea have never readout of the mouths of babes and sucklings thou has perfected praise".

I am going to take Jesus' word over that of the KJV.

The KJV is the most accurate English translation but it is certainly not without it's flaws.

Coldfire136, I agree with you on these points. But it's hard because the contrary is so embedded in the church today that to suggest anything else really boils the blood of the majority.

Kahtar
Jan 10th 2008, 05:09 AM
Interesting topic, Coldfire. But I've got to agree with Buckshot to a degree.
You say they were trying to 'push enlightenment thinking ', yet you yourself agree that they in other places translated the same word as dragon or serpent. It just doesn't follow that they were trying to push enlightenment if they translated it correctly in one place, and wrongly in another. If that was their agenda, they would have translated it whale in all locations.
I suspect there were other reasons for the discrepancy. Like perhaps something in the context that led them to believe it was a fish rather than serpent. One is a reptile, the other is not.

TEITZY
Jan 10th 2008, 05:51 AM
I place my faith in Jesus Christ, NOT the Bible.

Perhaps you would like to clarify this statement since it sounds a bit absurd as is coming from a Christian. How can you place your faith in Christ and not in the Bible, when the Bible contains THE authoritative account of Christ's life & teachings?

With regard to the use of the word tanniyn it appears obvious from the KJV use that it is a non-descript or general term used to describe great (ie. large & powerful) creatures which could include whales, dinosaurs, plesiosaurs etc.

You seem pretty much into "enlightenment thinking" yourself so I'm not sure why you object so much to this supposed bias with the KJV translators.

Cheers
Leigh

Tanya~
Jan 10th 2008, 06:17 AM
Hi Coldfire,

The KJV translators possibly made the decision for that translation because they didn't know exactly what this animal was. God created "great" (gadowl) "sea monsters" (tanniyn).

It was likely some animal that is now extinct, along with the millions of other things that were killed by the flood, or became extinct at some point afterwards. It was probably some kind of what we call 'dinosaur' today. People used to call this category of animals 'dragons.'

You might find the info at http://s8int.com/ helpful and interesting. At left you will see a link to the section about dinosaurs in art, history and literature.

At any rate, when you look at some of the fossils of some of the extinct sea creatures, it isn't really all that outlandish to think of them as monsters. The great blue whale is a monster too, and it isn't extinct. It may not be a monster like the creature from the black lagoon, or like Frankenstein, but it is really, really big.

Keep in mind that several of the words used in the KJV Bible have changed somewhat in meaning over time as well.

coldfire136
Jan 10th 2008, 02:08 PM
Perhaps you would like to clarify this statement since it sounds a bit absurd as is coming from a Christian. How can you place your faith in Christ and not in the Bible, when the Bible contains THE authoritative account of Christ's life & teachings?

There is really no need to clarify. The Bible is not Christ. We do not put our faith in the Bible, we put our faith in Jesus Christ.

coldfire136
Jan 10th 2008, 02:21 PM
Most of you have missed the point of what I was trying to say. I was attempting to show that there are "mythological aspects" in the creation narrative. The point is the KJV was wrong (most modern translations have fixed this grevious error). It is a poor translation. Notice, also, however that the great "sea monster" has been stripped of most of its mythological elements. There is no mythological story surrounding the monster as there was in the Ugaritic texs and other places.

The serpent/monster is usually considered an enemy of God. It is used allegorically in Ezekiel in this regard.

Tanya~
Jan 10th 2008, 02:26 PM
Most of you have missed the point of what I was trying to say. I was attempting to show that there are "mythological aspects" in the creation narrative.

I was trying to show that it isn't mythological at all. People assume it was mythological because they 'pooh-pooh' the idea of 'monsters,' but there are many creatures, both living and extinct, that were called 'dragons' at one time.



The serpent/monster is usually considered an enemy of God. It is used allegorically in Ezekiel in this regard.

What God created was not an enemy. Everything He made was "very good." Things changed after the fall, but God didn't create any 'monsters' in the sense that you're thinking.

fightingfalcon
Jan 10th 2008, 02:37 PM
While I applaud your efforts and your passion Buckshot, I place my faith in Jesus Christ, NOT the Bible.

It is His word, if we deny it as anything but the divine inspired word of God we will be deceived in the end and fall prey to Satan's snares. How do I know this? It is all in Revelation and Daniel, if we do not study this and know this for ourselves we will fall... the bible says "if it were possible the very elect" would be lost. This is a scary thought, we NEED to study the bible and follow it.

"For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ."

Now you'll probably say, look it says "denying only Lord Jesus" this means they did not have faith in Christ... not so. They could not have "crept in unawares" had they not professed faith in Christ... no indeed, they professed it and lived differently. My point? Faith in Christ is not enough, we need to live it, we need to read the Bible TO KNOW HOW TO live it.

"They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate."

Professing faith in Christ will not save us...


Like I said before, your whole point in "discussing" this is to present the incompetence of the bible... the atheists use it and Christians use it who do not want to follow the bible... Christ was clear that we should follow the bible, he followed it. Is the servant greater than his Lord?

Kahtar
Jan 10th 2008, 03:20 PM
I could be mistaken, but I think the original idea of this thread was to point out that there is a vast difference between the understanding and thinking processes of the Hebrews, and today's modern Greek way of thinking. To that point, I agree.
On the other hand, I do not think the creature being spoken of was mythical, but rather a real, live, breathing creature, but perhaps spoken of in a somewhat 'mythical' manner.

While we are discussing this, let's please remember to discuss the topic and not each other.

Nihil Obstat
Jan 10th 2008, 05:07 PM
As most of you know, I am of the opinion that the creation stories must be read within the context of the ancient near east and their traditions. Any attempt to try and make the document "scientific" or "historical" is to go further than where I believe the ancient Hebrews of the near east would have taken it. The primary understanding of Genesis must be theological, cultural, and anthropological.

Why can't it be both? Satan and his angels can't create, they can only pervert truth. Why can't the creation account in Genesis 1-2 be the actual account, which inspired wicked men to come up with their own creation accounts with their false gods, which then later Moses and the Israelites sanctified by using ancient near east combat myth language when describing the actual creation account? Does that make sense? Why couldn't it be both "scientific and historical" and "cultural and anthropological"?


We must consider the words carefully, and I am starting a thread here for the discussion of the "great sea monster" that God created on the fifth day (1:21). The KJV (mistakenly) translates it "great whales" to try and make up for the seemingly "mythological" etymology that the term carries. The Hebrew is tanniyn and is translated in other places (even in the KJV) as "serpent" (Ex. 7:9,10,11; Deu 32:33 translated "dragon"; if you do a word study you will find that most of the Prophetic literature also translated it "dragon" in the KJV). So why did the KJV translate it "whale" here.

Some other creation accounts in Scripture using sanctified combat myth language is Job 26:13; Pss. 74:12-17; 89:8-11; 2 Pet. 3:4-6 (compare other combat myth language in Scripture - Ex. 15:1-18; Isa. 27:1; 51:9; Dan. 7:1-14; Rev. 12:1-14:20).


It is my belief (and please correct me if you know more about the KJV translation than I do) that the authors were attempting to push enlightenment thinking on the creation narrative. Because God created dragons or great sea monsters seemed to "mythological," the authors of the translation changed it. Why is this so serious? Because most American readers don't know Hebrew or Greek, and they would gloss over the nuance like it was nothing. If there are mythological elements in the creation story, why do we try to hide them behind bad translations? These are important questions we must ask ourselves as we continue our talks on these boards about things like the aspects of history apparent in Genesis.

What does everyone think in this regard?


I doubt the KJV interpreters did this in order to trick the uneducated, seeing as how they put the KJV together in order to give all people God's written word, which testifies of Christ, "in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge" (Col. 2:2-3). So why did they write "great whales" instead of "great sea monsters", such as Tiamat and Rahab? Because they probably didn't understand that this was sanctified combat myth language! That's what I think anyway...

- Lk.11

AtHisFeet
Jan 10th 2008, 05:12 PM
I also am not trying to offend you but you should not need to bash translators because you have a question about why a word was translated that way.

Whew!!

I'm so glad you posted that Buck shot. When I first read your previous post(early in the thread) I thought you might be one of those "KJV-Only" folks.

I'm glad to see by the quote above that you aren't!!

groovemongrel
Jan 10th 2008, 05:21 PM
I believe the Leviathan and the Behometh are what we consider to be dinosaurs.

Nihil Obstat
Jan 10th 2008, 05:31 PM
I believe that Behemoth and Leviathan are 1) actual physical creatures, probably "dinosauria" in nature, 2) names of actual demons, probably principalities, and 3) prophetic of the false prophet / Antichrist and the first beast / antichrist spirit of Rev. 13... but that's me.

RJ Mac
Jan 10th 2008, 06:01 PM
God tells it just like it happened in Genesis, no myth all fact. He did it in 6 - 24hr days. Ex.20:11; The order of creation has nothing to do with laws of nature for they were not in effect until God rested from completing His work of creation.

The impossibility of the sun on day 4 and light on day 1 is true. The impossibility of vegetation of day 3 and the sun on day 4 is true. But so also is the impossibility of Jesus dying on the cross and spending 3 days in the tomb and rising again. And so is the impossibility of God destroying the universe in one day and making all men who ever lived stand accountable for their deeds and assigning them their eternal reward. But that is who God is, God of the impossible.

Joshua asked God to make the world stand still, impossible. Jonah 3 days in the belly of a sea monster - impossible. Hezikiah asked God to make the sun go backwards - impossible! But they all happened. And He has promised to save my wretched soul, all I have to do is overcome, remain faithful.

To say the 'authors' of the Bible is the first mistake. There is but one author His name is God. 1Pe.1:19-21 God wrote it and men penned it. There is no error in it, it is inspired. I can accept all that it contains because God created the world in 6 days, question that and you'll be questioning everything you read every time you turn a page in the Bible. But believe and accept Genesis and the Bible is the most glorious work known to man, number one best seller, one you can read over and over and never tire of, always learning from.

As for the sea monster, I always thought monster meant oversize, and that would be referring to dinosaurs in my books. Those sea monsters which all nations record sightings of, as they carve them on the front of their boats and celebrate dances to the dragons of the deep.

Genesis is a challenge to modern man from God, can you believe in the impossible, in the spiritual or do you need all things physically explained.
Genesis was written for us today.

RJ Mac

Nihil Obstat
Jan 10th 2008, 07:35 PM
God tells it just like it happened in Genesis, no myth all fact.

You're right! I apologize for not explaining: "combat myth" is just the name given to that type of story (typically, one of the gods in the great pantheon of gods becomes hazardous to all the other gods, and a new or relatively unknown god arises to defeat the chaotic god, where in the first battle the weaker god will lose, then ask wiser gods for help, is newly equipped, and then defeats the chaotic god in the second battle, now himself becoming the highest god). The Babylonians had their own creation account, which was a perversion of the actual Hebraic creation account. According to the Babylonians, the goddess of the chaotic deep, named Tiamat (http://www.pantheon.org/articles/t/tiamat.html), was killed by Marduk and her body was used to create the world. Though it is debatable, I believe that she is mentioned in Gen. 1:2, which tells of darkness being upon her face. In my opinion, Moses wrote Genesis using some combat myth language (that YHWH destroyed the ancient sea serpent, and from its body created creation - Job 26:13; Ps. 74:12-17; cp. Eze. 28:16-17; Rev. 12:9), but this does not mean that he compromised scientific or historical truths, nor does it mean that Genesis is a mythological / untrue account of God creating all of creation. That God is the Creator is arguably the most important name of His given in Scripture. What I mean by this is that whenever the prophets or apostles (or even God Himself) spoke of God, He was almost always referred to first as the God who created everything. So I agree with you that Moses was faithful in writing Genesis 1-3, but his creation account should also be understood properly as a sanctified combat myth. This is a glorious reality! Creation wasn't really created from a defeated god, but Moses used this type of language because the Hebrews knew these types of stories from Egypt (their sea serpent was called Rahab - Ex. 15:1-18; Ps. 89:8-11; Isa. 51:9).

Am I communicating this clearly? - Lk.11

Jude1:21
Jan 10th 2008, 07:57 PM
As for me and my house, I will never be a part of admitting any flaw in the KJV! This is the rock I have built my house on. I beleive all other ground is sinking sand. I also know that the translaters used the word dragon in many other places so they were not afraid of using something they had not seen or try to push a view. Their lives depended on an accurate interpretation. They were not out to publish a new book.
:agree: Gods Word in the Bible is the only Word that is the Truth because He tell us so and our rock stands on our belief.

RJ Mac
Jan 10th 2008, 08:32 PM
Astrongerthanhe - I understand you are saying God writes to refute false doctrine of that time. I state God writes to refute false doctrine of our time. The Bible is relevant to be understood in the present not the past. God uses the past to teach the present. Ro.15:4 written for our instruction.

To interpret by pulling out ancient writings, clouds the understanding, God didn't so compose to refute myth, He composed by telling Truth. He created it in 6 days. If that refutes ancient religions so be it, but for us today we are to understand it was created in 6 days. The world is but 10,000 years old, give or take. If men want to build up a tower called evolution, so be it, but we know otherwise, 2Cor.10:5 we are destroying speculation and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God....

Moses' ten plagues were not to refute the gods of the Egyptians, but to be a shadow of the coming of the Savior, so we can see Jesus is the prophet sent just like Moses Dt.18:18,19. But so many interpret bringing forth Egyptian religion wasting time and missing the point.

Moses brought the curse - Jesus brought the blessing
Water to blood - Jesus 1st miracle water to wine
Bringing frogs - Jesus cast out frogs, demons Rev.16:13
Stinging gnats - Jesus forgave sin, sting of death, 1C.15:56
Swarming insects - swarming people in Galilee
Pestilence - Jesus gave the great catch of fish
Boils - Jesus healed all diseases
Hail storm - Jesus calmed the storm
Locust - Jesus is bread of Life
Darkness 3 days - Jesus is the Light
Death of 1st born - Jesus is our Passover Lamb.

Old Testament is a shadow of the New Testament.
One might try to use it to battle ancient myths but that is not why
it happened that way, things happened so we can see Christ predicted
and now fulfilled.

RJ Mac

One more comment - God did not write the Bible as one writes a book, but in the Bible God records actual events, God Himself writes with history. He is the One who raises up nations to take out nations, and history happens in such a way that God is glorified. God is in control totally - Book of Daniel.

TEITZY
Jan 11th 2008, 11:45 PM
There is really no need to clarify. The Bible is not Christ. We do not put our faith in the Bible, we put our faith in Jesus Christ.

We put our faith in Christ because of what the Bible says about Him (see John 20:31). The two are mutually inclusive. If the Bible is wrong then we cannot believe anything it says about Christ either.

Cheers
Leigh

tgallison
Jan 12th 2008, 12:26 AM
While I applaud your efforts and your passion Buckshot, I place my faith in Jesus Christ, NOT the Bible.

Jesus is the Word of God.

The Bible is the Word of God.

Notice any similarities

Kahtar
Jan 12th 2008, 12:56 AM
:hmm: If the Word is removed from the planet, you still have Christ.
Without Christ, you have............................

RJ Mac
Jan 12th 2008, 01:35 AM
'Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away.' Mt.24:35

RJ

ross3421
Jan 12th 2008, 04:11 AM
So why did the KJV translate it "whale" here.



Great question, thank you.

I need to study this a bit further because I see deeper meanings to the use of whale in Gen 1 and not translated here as "dragons".

First I would say that everything God created was good and no evil. Even Lucifer was good. So it is possible that the word whale was used to show this innocence but later as the word translated to "dragons" to show that what was once good had turned to evil.

Interesting to note that whales do not go up out of water whereas dragons do.......this could have a deeper meaning that these animals (dragons) did not listen to God's command in chapter 1 and rebelled.

So for now I do not see a problem with the translation. Still checking.


Mark

Kahtar
Jan 12th 2008, 04:45 AM
'Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away.' Mt.24:35
RJYes, yes, of course. Even removing every scrap from the planet would not cause His Words to pass away. You'd have to re-arrange the stars as well, and even that would not cause His Words to pass away.
I was simply making an interesting 'observation'.

walked
Jan 12th 2008, 05:47 AM
Hi coldfire136,
Before I comment on the subject of your thread I want to point out how ambiguous the term mythological is and, how liberally you use that term here..... that term 'mythological' seems to me to be used as bait more than effective communication, that said I'll move to what your threads subject is.

I agree with you that revelation to man found in Genesis creation account isn't for accurate history or sequence of creation nor for scientific evidence for history in the account but, I think the Genesis account is for:
The revelation to man that God is the creator
And, the position man was created in and expected not to trespass out of
And, what happened when man decided to trespass out of that position
And, Gods plan is initially revealed here too for restoration from the affects of mans decision to trespass out of that position.

So, I have to agree with another post on this thread, whats the big deal with the English translation of tanniyn it doesn't affect the intended revelation to man found in Genesis one bit, does it? ....I absolutely don't see any conspiracy or intent to introduce or deny/hide anything mythological... also the translation of the word isn't actually inaccurate either a whale fits its definition as does more than two other creatures also fit the definition.

If you are just using this book and word (tanniyn) as an example of how misunderstandings can initially spring from and eventually grow from inaccurate translation of a single word, I agree totally but......
I don't fear the possibility of great a conspiracy befalling its fruition on His called out ones because I rest, have faith, believe God is faithful to what is revealed by His Spirit to me as I seek Him in His living word (bible) and I can digest any mistranslated words because my faith in His faithfulness will enable, renew, purify and transform me, just like Gods children following Moses looking at the serpent raised up on a pole for the salvation of those poisoned by an asp sent to afflict them, I look at Christ raised up to heal any poison/mistranslation/impure doctrine sent to afflict me.