That's your interpretation of the Bible. Whether it is a misinterpretation or not is between you and God.
Keep in mind that the the Codex Vaticanus (the best copy of the Latin Vulgate Bible, which is in practice what the Catholic church has used) and Textus Receptus (the oldest copy of the Protestant Bible but derived from the greek) can be quite different and were based on the judgement of different people (Jerome and Erasmus in this case).
Why? The Receptus was derived from the Greek, and the Vaticanus was derived from the Vulgate (which was derived from Hebrew sources). Now if you consider the Coptic and things like the Syriac church there is even more variation. I would say newer versions of the Bible tend to actually be more 'correct' because there is simply more versions of older scripts to compare against, and people have better command of ancient Hebrew and Greek.
Some of the nuance is lost in translation (for example, "our father" and "our Father in Heaven"). Sometimes in for example, in Hebrew they might have been the same word. In Greek they may have been different. Latin changed a lot from what the Romans spoke from Jesus' time to the Vulgate because of the introduction of barbarian words. Note that translation to other languages (for example English) will come with even more caveats - some of the earlier ones, for example, the King James Version, had a lot of defects. I would study the The New Oxford Annotated Bible, it's great.
Personally I would not read things so literally without studying with a Rosetta Stone. You gotta see the full picture if you are so critical of other people under Jesus' flock. I think modern versions are interesting because over time people have been able to digitize more versions of the Bible, even ancient versions, and compare them against each other. These days people do it with computers since more and more of the manuscripts are online.
And this is just the New Testament, the Old Testament has even more variation (and similarities) especially if you trace back to the Cuneiform/Aramaic and the starts of Semitic language. I think the biggest part of the modern age (last 20 years) has been the explosion of papyrus and the ability to process and translate between languages using computers, maybe the tower of babel in reverse.
I would have faith in Isaiah 55:11
That's your interpretation of the Bible. Whether it is a misinterpretation or not is between you and God. I would understand God's word rather than
Keep in mind that the the Codex Vaticanus (the best copy of the Latin Vulgate Bible, which is in practice what the Catholic church has used) and Textus Receptus (the oldest copy of the Protestant Bible but derived from the greek) can be quite different and were based on the judgement of different people (Jerome and Erasmus in this case).
Why? The Receptus was derived from the Greek, and the Vaticanus was derived from the Vulgate (which was derived from Hebrew sources). Now if you consider the Coptic and things like the Syriac church there is even more variation. I would say newer versions of the Bible tend to actually be more 'correct' because there is simply more versions of older scripts to compare against, and people have better command of ancient Hebrew and Greek.
Some of the nuance is lost in translation (for example, "our father" and "our Father in Heaven"). Sometimes in for example, in Hebrew they might have been the same word. In Greek they may have been different. Latin changed a lot from what the Romans spoke from Jesus' time to the Vulgate because of the introduction of barbarian words. Note that translation to other languages (for example English) will come with even more caveats - some of the earlier ones, for example, the King James Version, had a lot of defects/
Personally I would not read things so literally without studying with a Rosetta Stone. You gotta see the full picture if you are so critical of other people under Jesus' flock. I think modern versions are interesting because over time people have been able to digitize more versions of the Bible, even ancient versions, and compare them against each other. These days people do it with computers since more and more of the manuscripts are online.
And this is just the New Testament, the Old Testament has even more variation (and similarities) especially if you trace back to the Cuneiform/Aramaic and the starts of Semitic language. I think the biggest part of the modern age (last 20 years) has been the explosion of papyrus and the ability to process and translate between languages using computers, maybe the tower of babel in reverse.
I would have faith in Isaiah 55:11
That's your interpretation of the Bible. Whether it is a misinterpretation or not is between you and God.
Keep in mind that the the Codex Vaticanus (the best copy of the Latin Vulgate Bible, which is in practice what the Catholic church has used) and Textus Receptus (the oldest copy of the Protestant Bible but derived from the greek) can be quite different and were based on the judgement of different people (Jerome and Erasmus in this case).
Why? The Receptus was derived from the Greek, and the Vaticanus was derived from the Vulgate (which was derived from Hebrew sources). Now if you consider the Coptic and things like the Syriac church there is even more variation.
Some of the nuance is lost in translation (for example, "our father" and "our Father in Heaven"). Sometimes in for example, in Hebrew they might have been the same word. In Greek they may have been different. Latin changed a lot from what the Romans spoke from Jesus' time to the Vulgate because of the introduction of barbarian words. Note that translation to other languages (for example English) will come with even more caveats, for example, the King James Version will kinda try to sound Latinish (by style) even if they weren't even translated from Latin!
Personally I would not read things so literally without studying with a Rosetta Stone. You gotta see the full picture if you are so critical of other people under Jesus' flock. I think modern versions are interesting because over time people have been able to digitize more versions of the Bible, even ancient versions, and compare them against each other. These days people do it with computers since more and more of the manuscripts are online.
And this is just the New Testament, the Old Testament has even more variation (and similarities) especially if you trace back to the Cuneiform/Aramaic and the starts of Semitic language. I think the biggest part of the modern age (last 20 years) has been the explosion of papyrus and the ability to process and translate between languages using computers, maybe the tower of babel in reverse.
I would have faith in Isaiah 55:11
That's your interpretation of the Bible. Whether it is a misinterpretation or not is between you and God.
Keep in mind that the the Codex Vaticanus (the best copy of the Latin Vulgate Bible, which is in practice what the Catholic church has used) and Textus Receptus (the oldest copy of the Protestant Bible but derived from the greek) can be quite different and were based on the judgement of different people (Jerome and Erasmus in this case).
Why? The Receptus was derived from the Greek, and the Vaticanus was derived from the Vulgate (which was derived from Hebrew sources). Now if you consider the Coptic and things like the Syriac church there is even more variation.
Some of the nuance is lost in translation (for example, "our father" and "our Father in Heaven"). Sometimes in for example, in Hebrew they might have been the same word. In Greek they may have been different. Latin changed a lot from what the Romans spoke from Jesus' time to the Vulgate because of the introduction of barbarian words. Note that translation to other languages (for example English) will come with even more caveats, for example, the King James Version will kinda try to sound Latinish even if they weren't even translated from Latin!
Personally I would not read things so literally without studying with a Rosetta Stone. You gotta see the full picture if you are so critical of other people under Jesus' flock. I think modern versions are interesting because over time people have been able to digitize more versions of the Bible, even ancient versions, and compare them against each other.
And this is just the New Testament, the Old Testament has even more variation (and similarities) especially if you trace back to the Cuneiform/Aramaic and the starts of Semitic language.
I would trust Isaiah 55:11
That's your interpretation of the Bible. Whether it is a misinterpretation or not is between you and God.
Keep in mind that the the Codex Vaticanus (the best copy of the Latin Vulgate Bible, which is in practice what the Catholic church has used) and Textus Receptus (the oldest copy of the Protestant Bible but derived from the greek) can be quite different and were based on the judgement of different people (Jerome and Erasmus in this case).
Why? The Receptus was derived from the Greek (but keep mind there was lot of variation in the original sources), and the Vaticanus was derived from the Vulgate (which was derived from Hebrew sources). Now if you consider the Coptic and things like the Syriac church there is even more variation.
Some of the nuance is lost in translation (for example, "our father" and "our Father in Heaven"). Sometimes in for example, in Hebrew they might have been the same word. In Greek they may have been different. Latin changed a lot from what the Romans spoke from Jesus' time to the Vulgate because of the introduction of barbarian words. Note that translation to other languages (for example English) will come with even more caveats, for example, the King James Version will kinda try to sound Latinish even if they weren't even translated from Latin!
Personally I would not read things so literally without studying with a Rosetta Stone. You gotta see the full picture if you are so critical of other people under Jesus' flock. I think modern versions are interesting because over time people have been able to digitize more versions of the Bible, even ancient versions, and compare them against each other.
And this is just the New Testament, the Old Testament has even more variation (and similarities) especially if you trace back to the Cuneiform/Aramaic and the starts of Semitic language.
That's your interpretation of the Bible. Whether it is a misinterpretation or not is between you and God.
Keep in mind that the the Codex Vaticanus (the best copy of the Latin Vulgate Bible, which is in practice what the Catholic church has used) and Textus Receptus (the oldest copy of the Protestant Bible but derived from the greek) can be quite different and were based on the judgement of different people (Jerome and Erasmus in this case).
Why? The Receptus was derived from the Greek, and the Vaticanus was derived from the Vulgate (which was derived from Hebrew sources). Now if you consider the Coptic and things like the Syriac church there is even more variation.
Some of the nuance is lost in translation (for example, "our father" and "our Father in Heaven"). Sometimes in for example, in Hebrew they might have been the same word. In Greek they may have been different. Latin changed a lot from what the Romans spoke from Jesus' time to the Vulgate because of the introduction of barbarian words. Note that translation to other languages (for example English) will come with even more caveats, for example, the King James Version will kinda try to sound Latinish even if they weren't even translated from Latin!
Personally I would not read things so literally without studying with a Rosetta Stone. You gotta see the full picture if you are so critical of other people under Jesus' flock. I think modern versions are interesting because over time people have been able to digitize more versions of the Bible, even ancient versions, and compare them against each other.
And this is just the New Testament, the Old Testament has even more variation (and similarities) especially if you trace back to the Cuneiform/Aramaic and the starts of Semitic language.
That's your interpretation of the Bible. Whether it is a misinterpretation or not is between you and God.
Keep in mind that the the Codex Vaticanus (the best copy of the Latin Vulgate Bible, which is in practice what the Catholic church has used) and Textus Receptus (the oldest copy of the Protestant Bible but derived from the greek) can be quite different and were based on the judgement of different people (Jerome and Erasmus in this case).
Why? The Receptus was derived from the Greek, and the Vaticanus was derived from the Vulgate (which was derived from Hebrew sources). Now if you consider the Coptic and things like the Syriac church there is even more variation.
Some of the nuance is lost in translation (for example, "our father" and "our Father in Heaven"). Sometimes in for example, in Hebrew they might have been the same word. In Greek they may have been different. Latin changed a lot from what the Romans spoke from Jesus' time to the Vulgate because of the introduction of barbarian words.
Personally I would not read things so literally without studying with a Rosetta Stone. You gotta see the full picture if you are so critical of other people under Jesus' flock.
And this is just the New Testament, the Old Testament has even more variation (and similarities) especially if you trace back to the Cuneiform/Aramaic and the starts of semitic language.
That's your interpretation of the Bible. Whether it is a misinterpretation or not is between you and God.
Keep in mind that the the Codex Vaticanus (the best copy of the Latin Vulgate Bible, which is in practice what the Catholic church has used) and Textus Receptus (the oldest copy of the Protestant Bible but derived from the greek) can be quite different and were based on the judgement of different people (Jerome and Erasmus in this case).
Why? The Receptus was derived from the Greek and the Vaticanus was derived from the Vulgate which was derived from Hebrew sources. Now if you consider the Coptic and things like the Syriac church there is even more variation.
Some of the nuance is lost in translation depending on translation (for example, "our father" and "our Father in Heaven"). Sometimes in for example, in Hebrew they might have been the same word. In Greek they may have been different. Latin changed a lot from what the Romans spoke from Jesus' time to the Vulgate because of the introduction of barbarian words and this would eventually lead to the Romance languages.
Personally I would not read things as literally without studying with a Rosetta Stone so you see the full picture if you are so critical of other people under Jesus' flock. And this is just the New Testament, the Old Testament has even more variation (and similarities) especially if you trace back to the Cuneiform/Aramaic and the starts of semitic language.
That's your interpretation of the Bible. Keep in mind that the the Codex Vaticanus (the best copy of the Latin Vulgate Bible, which is in practice what the Catholic church has used) and Textus Receptus (the oldest copy of the Protestant Bible but derived from the greek) can be quite different and were based on the judgement of different people (Jerome and Erasmus in this case).
Why? The Receptus was derived from the Greek and the Vaticanus was derived from the Vulgate which was derived from Hebrew sources. Now if you consider the Coptic and things like the Syriac church there is even more variation.
Some of the nuance is lost in translation depending on translation (for example, "our father" and "our Father in Heaven"). Sometimes in for example, in Hebrew they might have been the same word. In Greek they may have been different. Latin changed a lot from what the Romans spoke from Jesus' time to the Vulgate because of the introduction of barbarian words and this would eventually lead to the Romance languages.
Personally I would not read things as literally without studying with a Rosetta Stone so you see the full picture if you are so critical of other people under Jesus' flock.