Here is the question:
Is the religion X following the scripture Y? Is accepting a sentence
after interpreting it an acceptance indeed?
What believers of a religion follow is the reality referenced by their scripture, not the scripture itself. The scripture keeps that reality in the believer’s mind, but it is not that reality. If the text were what was followed, the text would be a kind of idol.
Accepting the scripture or an interpretation of a scripture is something a believer chooses to do or not do after the believer understands the scripture. If the reality referenced by the scripture is infinite and the text is finite, the mapping between the finite text and infinite reality cannot be expected to represent a bijection. See the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's Maimonides reference for a suggestion that silence may be a better interpretation of the content of some scriptures.
This would also be true for sentences dependent upon human understanding, not only scriptures that a believer uses.
By contrast, if a text were codified so transformations of the text could be checked by a computer, an “interpretation” of that text could be defined as any valid transformation. Then acceptance or "following" of the original text or an interpretation would be based on the computer's logic, not human understanding. That, however, is not what is going on with human understanding of a scripture.