Here is the funny part. We post scripture STRAIGHT from the Bible and you call it an interpretation. That’s hilarious. Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha...
I would be careful about laughing at anyone becuase you could be laughung at yourself.
Direct quote from the Bible doesn't mean there is only one interpretation. Especially when it comes to St. Paul whose writing is notorious for difficulty in interpretation.
You are also negelcting the fact that what St. Paul wrote did not come in KJV. It looked more like this: ifucnrdthisthenucnalsounderstandthedifficultyinvolvedwithbiblicaltextswhichcomingfromvariousauthorsanderaswithoutproperpunctuationspellingcontaintranscriptionerrors.
There are many instances where St.Paul's sentences can be read in more than one way, depending where the commas are placed and the way they are worded. Take for example Rom 5:12: εφ ω παντες ημαρτον (ef' haw pantes hemarton)
It can be translated as "because all have sinned" as well as "in whom (Adam) all have sinned." Both readings are legitimate. They served as the basis for the divergent doctrines of the original sin.
In the East, it was read in the former way, which places the responsibility and guilt on each human individually for his sins, and therefore does not impute inherited guilt of Adam passed on to all generations.
In the West, the latter reading became doctrinal and with it the idea that we are born with Adam's sin. The implication of these different interpretations is mindboggling.
It affected St. Augustine's doctrine, as well as the Eastern rejection of his doctrine when it became known (14th century) in the East.
It led the Roman Catholic Church to justify the dogma of Immaculate Conception, which the Orthodox do not share, and it also led to Anselm's (erroneous) doctrine of atonement which your Protestants inherited form the Latin Church, and which was unknown tot he Church for the first 1,000 years.
So, as you can see, not only is the text of St. Paul's writings physically difficult to read, but conceptually open to different interpretations.
When you write "We post scripture STRAIGHT from the Bible and you call it an interpretation" it tells me two things: (1) you have no idea what you are talking about and (2) you are assuming that only the interpretation of your version of the Bible is correct.
Reading a neatly packaged Bible in Protestant lecture halls on Sundays gives a false reality of what the Bible is, and gives you absolutely no idea how much the Bible you read is actually an artificial product of human hands and minds.