In the thread in General Baptist Discussions, "I have to know. What changed Billy's Mind," Crabtownboy suggested that the renderings in the OP title were necessary. I disagree. Here is what Crabtownboy wrote there: As a Bible translator, I have to say there is no need for such subterfuges as this. To translate a lamb (Christ the Lamb of God) as a pig or snow as wool does three things wrong: (1) It dumbs down the Scripture. People who live where there are pigs but no sheep, or wool but no snow are entirely capable of understanding such things with only a little bit of explanation. (2) It thus disrespects the reader, saying in essence that they are too dumb to understand what a lamb is or snow is simply because it doesn't exist where they are. (If I explain a Japanese snow monkey to you, could you understand? Of course you could.) When those nationals get educated after reading such a Bible and find out what snow and a lamb really are, they then lose confidence in their Bible translation. (3) Such renderings tear at the very fabric of the illustrations involved. In the case of the snow, new fallen snow is pure white, but wool is not. In the case of the lamb, the illustration rests on the OT sacrificial system, in which the pig is an abomination. It is better to transliterate the word snow or lamb. Then, simple footnotes can give the meaning. Easy, accurate, educational.