How should one interpret the Bible?

[Justin108]

When interpreting the Bible, should one's primary goal be to
a) Figure out what the author probably meant?
b) Try to get the Bible to conform to reality?
c) Interpret the Bible to be free of any immortality and/or inconsistencies?

If one were to take a look at an earlier debate between myself and JehovahsWitness...

viewtopic.php?p=836617#836617
...it seems to me that JehovahsWitness is interpreting the Bible using method b) mentioned above.

Another member, ttruscott, essentially created his own denomination. His justification can be seen here...

viewtopic.php?p=850683#850683
...it seems Ted would rather selectively interpret the Bible to "fix" the supposed blasphemy of concluding that God is at fault for our inherited sin than consider what he authors actually intended to say. Ted seems to be using method c). As with JehovahsWitness, Ted seems to place the authors' intention as a secondary concern with "fixing" the blasphemy as the primary focus of his interpretation.

Another example of method c) can be found here...

viewtopic.php?p=851127#851127

onewithhim not only disregards the author's intentions but directly disregards what the author directly said.

So the gist of it seems to be that JehovahsWitness will always interpret the Bible to conform to reality while ttruscott will always interpret the Bible in a way to avoid any potential moral inconsistencies. Neither of these are interested in method a) as stated above. Rather, they all seem to focus primarily on fixing potential flaws in the Bible.

Is using any method other than method a) a dishonest way of interpreting the Bible?

[Justin108]

They have been trying to kill me for thousands of years but without any success because I AM the TRUTH that gives life to all created men.

On second thought, I don't want you to be banned. You're far too entertaining

You're not the one making the decisions. Everything is happening according to the program.

Is this before or after Skynet takes over? Or is this more of a Wachowski Brothers thing?

[jcforever]

Moderator, OnceConvinced removed one-line, non-contributing post. Kindly refrain from making posts that contribute nothing to debate and/or simply express agreement / disagreement or make other frivolous remarks.

For complimenting or agreeing use the "Like" function or the MGP button. For anything else use PM.

[OnceConvinced]

Are you the owner of this site who made the rules? I am the owner of all the words that I have posted in this forum and take full responsibility for them. I am not a coward who is fearful of man's rules to limit my freedom of speech.

Moderator Warning


You have freedom of speech on this site, however there are strict rules that must be adhered to. This is a DEBATE site and therefore we expect people to debate, not just preach. All claims must be backed up with reason or evidence. The bible is not considered authoritative unless you are posting in the Theology, Doctrine and Dogma subforum.

You have had numerous posts reported for preaching. If you are not willing to abide by forum rules then your stay will be a short one.


Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[ttruscott]

And when asked, 'so what?', I answer with the rest of the hints that life in the garden may not have been so morally good which builds the case for us not inheriting Adam's sin.

Not a very strong case. This is about as convincing as pointing out a triangle in a photo of the president and going "see?? SEE?? Illuminati confirmed"

Yes, your personal opinion is noted...

2. Supposing for argument sake that "'arm" did in fact mean "subtle" in Adam and Eve's case. "Subtle" does not mean "sinful". "Subtle" is in itself morally neutral. One can be subtle while still being moral.

Well, while the word in Hebrew can mean subtle, shrewd, crafty and sly, it is also
sensible and prudent indicating a good side to the shrewdness, it would seem that what is being conveyed is a immoral beguiling, seducing, side from Genesis 3:13 "The serpent deceived me, and I ate."

Yes. It indicates an immoral subtlety to the serpent. But to then conclude "all mentions of "subtle" in this entire book now means "immoral" is an unjustified leap. Concluding that the serpent was an immoral kind of subtle is entirely justified, but assuming that all characters said to be "subtle" is therefore an evil kind of subtle is an unjustified assumption.

Which is why I present how Adam was not being faithful to GOD so subtle as evil is reinforced.
1. Adam tried to find a mate among the animals. Why do that? To fix a "not good" of his being alone. Do you think it was GOD's idea to look among the animals for his mate when he had Eve waiting in the wings? No, probably not. So could Adam have been faithfully following HIS GOD when he did this? No, probably not.

What if God was simply silent on this? Do you expect Adam to literally do nothing at all until God told him to? Maybe Adam tried to figure things out for himself a bit before running to God with every single problem he was faced with? At no point did God say "don't go looking for a mate" so Adam exploring a bit does not go against God's commands in any way.

Any sin can be whitewashed with sophisticated argument...

Therefore he was either ignoring GOD about this matter or in active rebellion to Eve as his mate

False dichotomy. A third possibility is God was silent on the matter and Adam explored Eden on his own accord.
...
Adam was unaware of Eve's existence. God never told him about Eve and Adam decided to go look for a mate and at no point did God forbid him from doing so. Where exactly is the rebellion here?

Sure but then why did GOD not tell him and let him waste his time looking at all the animals? Seems fishy to me... Remember I said hints, not proofs.

but whatever the reason we can see that by looking for his mate among the animals he was probably not being righteous and faithful which is the state of being sinful.

How is looking for something unrighteous??? When did God forbid Adam from looking for a mate??

Righteous is being in sync with GOD, being sinful is being out of sync with GOD. Was Adam in sync or out of sync with his GOD?

2. Eve's relationship with the serpent. The serpent was GOD's enemy so to be in a state of friendship with him indicates sinfulness.

How exactly was Eve supposed to know the serpent was God's enemy? Did God tell her that the serpent was his enemy?

In my understanding of how she got to be a sinner pre-earth, yes indeed, she had been ordered to quit accepting him as her friend after he fully rejected YHWH's claim to deity and promise of salvation from sin rendering himself eternally evil, so he could be judged but she would have none of it and rebelled against GOD for giving that order. This forced HIM to postpone the judgement so Eve would not be judged too (she was under the promise of being saved from judgement) until she learned the serpent was not really her friend.

There is also the fact that she could not tell he was not a good friend or mentor and accepted him as an authority...one of the aspects of being righteous is that the righteous can see spiritual truths (like the serpent's evil state) and it is sin that blinds us to such things: 1 John 2:11 But anyone who hates another brother or sister is still living and walking in darkness. Such a person does not know the way to go, having been blinded by the darkness.

And IF she was innocent and GOD did not warn her that really bad people were allowed into the garden and had her destruction as their purpose - how can we say HE was loving at all? I know atheists like to claim HE was not loving but Christians must explain how HE could be loving yet leave her to the wiles of the serpent with no warning or help. The logic doesn't work at all.

Now if GOD had warned her about the serpent before being brought to earth and knew she was blinded by her sin of refusing to end her friendship with the satanic serpent, HE allowed the serpent to try to destroy her relationship with HIM by deceiving her so she could have her eyes opened to her sin (being not ashamed proves she rejected being labeled a sinner), and to have her eyes opened to the the sin of the serpent and his willingness to back stab her so deceitfully so she would finally reject him as her friend, now there is a story that make sense, ie, why a loving GOD let the story play out between them so she would accept her sin and look for her saviour.

It is not that your interpretation couldn't be, it just doesn't make sense in the context.

Eve had absolutely no way of knowing the serpent was God's enemy, so why would befriending him indicate she was evil?

Your "absolutely" is amusing, eh? She may have been told and ignored it. She may have been able to tell before she became evil herself. You seem to think that walking and talking in the garden was restricted to a one line conversation not a relationship with many chances for discussion about life on earth. Did they really talk to the serpent more than they talked to the one they thought of as their GOD? I don't think so...

Holy does not mingle with the evil it must live among.

With this logic, if at any point in your life you strike up a friendly conversation with someone who turns out to be a serial killer, you are automatically evil?

There is live with/among and there is to be enmeshed with them, accepting them as a good person. No one is guilty of making a mistake such as befriending a sinner (no one sin is worse than any other single sin) but only for rebelling against GOD's righteousness.

I contend she had been asked to quit being friends and accepting of sinners, most notably the sssserpent, but rebelled. This made her guilty. Politely ignoring him and moving along does not.

If that is not enough, she is seen to accept him as a mentor or pastor since she follows him in his deceit to get her to break the command.

Given that the forbidden fruit is called "the knowledge of good and evil", logic dictates that Eve was ignorant on the concept of good an evil and so she wouldn't know evil if it slapped her in the face. This perfectly explains why an ignorant Eve would accept the serpent as her mentor.

She was ignorant of her own sin, she accepted GOD's enemy as her mentor, which as a righteous person she would have known was wrong. So the fruit was to open her eyes to the the personal knowledge of her own (lost) good and (current state of) evil. The fruit is a symbol for the final last sin the breaks the rejection of guilt so the person finally breaks down and repents in an all consuming self disgust. Every Christian eats this fruit and dies of guilt and is reborn into Christ. It is that last sin that forces us to accept that GOD is right - we are truly evil and corrupt.

1. Eve had no way of knowing the serpent was evil

The way she knew was that GOD ordered her and she rebelled and HE told her she was now sinful. [Or else you have to believe that what is written is the only things GOD and the two had to say to each other in the garden while they walked and talked.] She rejected this because she sinned out of love and love can never be evil, can it? Well, yes, Victoria, love for evil is evil...

2. Eve had no understanding of evil at all, so even if the serpent said "oh and by the way, I am evil" Eve would have no idea what that even means

You assume this because it fits your narrative. I assume she knew exactly what evil was and meant and chose by her free will to side with the serpent against YHWH, her GOD, because she thought the judgement to hell was too harsh, the evil ones had not enough time to repent, and hell contradicted GODly love.

No one can become a sinner by mistake. If it was as you suggest then GOD is unfair, unjust and not righteous. Only a true free will decison to reject GOD's command can make one guilty before HIM and under HIS justice. She was deceived. Being tricked into doing something sinful does not make a person sinful!! It only proves one is already sinful and cannot tell the truth between a pastor and a satanic demon! The serpent could never deceive Michael or Gabriel, eh? The wiles of the evil ones only seduce those who have chosen to rebel against GOD by their free will already. Sin does not come from GOD nor from Satan but from our own evil desires: James 1:13 When tempted, no one should say, God is tempting me. For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He tempt anyone. 14 But each one is tempted when by his own evil desires he is lured away and enticed. 15 Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.

Or so I see it...

[Justin108]

Which is why I present how Adam was not being faithful to GOD so subtle as evil is reinforced.
1. Adam tried to find a mate among the animals.

Again, God never commanded against this so Adam was not being "evil". How is curiosity evil? When you were a kid, did you just sit in your room all day, staring at a wall, waiting for your parents to tell you what to do? Please explain to me how doing something that God never commanded against is being "unfaithful"?

What if God was simply silent on this? Do you expect Adam to literally do nothing at all until God told him to? Maybe Adam tried to figure things out for himself a bit before running to God with every single problem he was faced with? At no point did God say "don't go looking for a mate" so Adam exploring a bit does not go against God's commands in any way.

Any sin can be whitewashed with sophisticated argument...

Are you actually going to address the argument I made? Or are you just going to dismiss it as "a sophisticated whitewash"?Can you perhaps point out any flaws in my argument?

Therefore he was either ignoring GOD about this matter or in active rebellion to Eve as his mate

False dichotomy. A third possibility is God was silent on the matter and Adam explored Eden on his own accord.
...
Adam was unaware of Eve's existence. God never told him about Eve and Adam decided to go look for a mate and at no point did God forbid him from doing so. Where exactly is the rebellion here?

Sure but then why did GOD not tell him and let him waste his time looking at all the animals? Seems fishy to me...

So because something seems '"fishy" to you, you're just going to fill in the planks as you please and assume that Adam was being deliberately evil and unfaithful, despite no such indication?

Adam was supposedly immortal at this point. He literally had all the time in the world. It's not much of a waste of time when Adam hardly had anything better to do. Maybe God allowed Adam to be single for a bit so he can appreciate Eve once she arrives? We all start out as single. Why is it so surprising to you that Adam did as well? Your assumption that this indicates Adam's evilness is simply not justified

Righteous is being in sync with GOD, being sinful is being out of sync with GOD. Was Adam in sync or out of sync with his GOD?

What exactly does being "in sync with God" entail? Does it mean knowing everything God knows? Are you sinful for not being omniscient? Unless God says "don't do X" you cannot blame Adam for doing X, especially if doing X is harmful to no one. The picture you're painting is that Adam had to somehow know that there is no mate for him out there, that Adam had to somehow know that God had other plans. How should Adam have known these things if God never told him?

I sincerely hope you never end up on a jury, because if this is how you determine guilt then I pity whoever would be on trial. You assume Adam's guilt from the start, then you actively look for the most absurd indications of guilt where no such guilt exists.

2. Eve's relationship with the serpent. The serpent was GOD's enemy so to be in a state of friendship with him indicates sinfulness.

How exactly was Eve supposed to know the serpent was God's enemy? Did God tell her that the serpent was his enemy?

In my understanding of how she got to be a sinner pre-earth, yes indeed, she had been ordered to quit accepting him as her friend

Unless you can quote scripture on where God told Eve to not befriend him, your speculation here is pointless. Your argument is becoming circular. PCEC is exactly the thing you are meant to support.

- Your argument is that PCEC is true partly because Eve was already sinful
- You support your claim that Eve was sinful by pointing out that she willfully disobeyed God in befriending the serpent
- I ask how you know she willfully defied God in this, to which you respond (I paraphrase) "assuming PCEC is true, God already told her not to befriend the serpent"

Do you see how circular this is getting? You cannot assume PCEC in the argument meant to support PCEC. That is by definition circular

There is also the fact that she could not tell he was not a good friend or mentor and accepted him as an authority...one of the aspects of being righteous is that the righteous can see spiritual truths

So not instinctively knowing when someone is being deceptive automatically means you are unrighteous? Not to mention the fact that, as already stated, Eve did not eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, so how is she expected to know evil when she sees it?

one of the aspects of being righteous is that the righteous can see spiritual truths (like the serpent's evil state) and it is sin that blinds us to such things

So before any of us sinned pre-earth, we all knew what was righteous? We all had spiritual truth? But if we all had spiritual truth before we sinned, would we not all know that Yahweh was God? Doesn't PCEC revolve around the fact that none of us know that God was really God?

1 John 2:11 But anyone who hates another brother or sister is still living and walking in darkness. Such a person does not know the way to go, having been blinded by the darkness.

This text can be interpreted a million ways, but to interpret it as "if you do not immediately recognize a deceiver, then you are evil" is a bit of a stretch.

If all of us were sinless at one point, then we would all have had spiritual truth at that point. If we had such spiritual truth, we would all have known for a fact that Yahweh is God. Your PCEC defeats itself.

And IF she was innocent and GOD did not warn her that really bad people were allowed into the garden and had her destruction as their purpose - how can we say HE was loving at all? I know atheists like to claim HE was not loving but Christians must explain how HE could be loving yet leave her to the wiles of the serpent with no warning or help. The logic doesn't work at all.

That's the entire point of my OP. You are not interpreting the text according to what it says (method a) as described in my OP), you interpret it in a way as to absolve God of any guilt. You are using method c) as described in my OP. You are essentially confirming my entire point.

It is not that your interpretation couldn't be, it just doesn't make sense in the context.

Going back to my OP, is there any indication that the author intended the text to be interpreted your way? Or is your interpretation entirely the result of your incorporation of method c)?

I contend she had been asked to quit being friends and accepting of sinners, most notably the sssserpent, but rebelled.

Contend all you like. Unless you can quote scripture on this, this is nothing but your own imagination. Again, PCEC is the thing you are trying to support here, yet you are asking us to presuppose PCEC in order for your argument to hold. This is circular reasoning.

This made her guilty. Politely ignoring him and moving along does not.

Yes. This would make her guilty. If this happened. Can you provide the scripture where God commanded Eve to not befriend the serpent?

She was ignorant of her own sin, she accepted GOD's enemy as her mentor, which as a righteous person she would have known was wrong.

Before her very first sin (pre-earth), she was righteous, right? If so, how did she ever commit her first sin if she, as a righteous person, would have known it is wrong?

1. Eve had no way of knowing the serpent was evil

The way she knew was that GOD ordered her and she rebelled and HE told her she was now sinful.

Please provide the supporting scripture

[Or else you have to believe that what is written is the only things GOD and the two had to say to each other in the garden while they walked and talked.]

False dichotomy. It is entirely possible for God and Eve to have had lengthy discussions without God ever telling Eve to stay away from the serpent.

2. Eve had no understanding of evil at all, so even if the serpent said "oh and by the way, I am evil" Eve would have no idea what that even means

You assume this because it fits your narrative.

I assume this because that is what "tree of knowledge of good and evil" implies. But even if I didn't make this connection, there is still no indication that Eve knew the serpent was evil

I assume she knew exactly what evil was and meant and chose by her free will to side with the serpent against YHWH, her GOD, because she thought the judgement to hell was too harsh, the evil ones had not enough time to repent, and hell contradicted GODly love.

Baseless assumption

No one can become a sinner by mistake. If it was as you suggest then GOD is unfair, unjust and not righteous.

Again you are using method c) as described in my OP

[ttruscott]

Which is why I present how Adam was not being faithful to GOD so subtle as evil is reinforced.
1. Adam tried to find a mate among the animals.

Again, God never commanded against this so Adam was not being "evil".

When you speak so didactically it moves me to ask for your proof... you don't know what they talked about and the few sentences mentioned in the story are probably not the full measure of their communication. IF Adam had been told to reject the Satanic arguments and those who followed them and was fine with that, but couldn't separate from Eve when she rebelled against that command and so they each became sinful, he too would know all about GOD's commands and realize if Eve had not stayed friends with the serpent, things would be fine with them right now. Maybe he resented her a little bit for getting him into his rebellion for her sake and did not want to marry her at all.

Your sceptical suppositions do not sway me from my own speculations which I see as being very easily supported in the Biblical language, a consideration of much more importance than a speculation from secular materialism.

Are you actually going to address the argument I made? Or are you just going to dismiss it as "a sophisticated whitewash"? Can you perhaps point out any flaws in my argument?

I thought I did - if we accept your suppositions then we have GOD treating HIS newly created innocent children in a most unloving and unrighteous manner, turning them over to HIS worst enemy's mercies, which of course goes against the whole tenor of the Bible story. My suppositions are at least within ordinary acceptance of the goodness of GOD including that they sinned by their own free will and GOD did not adjudicate them as sinners because the serpent deceived them, an unrighteous injustice. I mentioned all this - how can you think I ignored your argument??? Did you not read my rebuttal? Perhaps you did not understand what I meant or why it was applicable to your interpretation?

Maybe ...

It's been fun but I feel like when my son was a two year old and got onto asking why a million times - I wanted to help him understand but it was obvious he understood nothing about he answers and it became tedious. I met this same attitude in self defence seminars when there was a "what if" monkey in attendance. No matter what I said, he would ask "but what if..." ad nauseum. It happened more than one would expect. They thought their ability to creatively think of a problem I couldn't answer meant that I was a failure and they were a winner, oh well. I have a black T-shirt with "There are 27 Ninjas hidden on this shirt!" to honour the final what if ever...What if you found yourself in an alley surrounded by 27 ninjas with machine guns - what would you do then?

Thanks for the fun but I gottah go...

[Youkilledkenny]

[Replying to post 1 by Justin108]

The only way is to interpret it in a way that fits your needs (beyond glaring objections).
In other words, don't add a belief in a moon living spaghetti monster UNLESS, of course, you can prove it (show your work) based on biblical wording but if you can point to an angry, vengeful god, then live your life that way knowing you're 'right' in God's eyes.
After all, no one can take that away from you.

This method has worked for hundreds of years - netting control and money for some - so there's no real good reason to change it. Unless you just want act like a good person and not treat others like poo....

[Justin108]

Again, God never commanded against this so Adam was not being "evil".

When you speak so didactically it moves me to ask for your proof... you don't know what they talked about and the few sentences mentioned in the story are probably not the full measure of their communication.

Very well let me rephrase; nowhere in scripture does God ever command against Adam's explorations and so to assume he did is an unjustified assumption. Looking at the text and only the text, there is no indication that Adam had ever sinned prior to eating the fruit.

IF Adam had been told to reject the Satanic arguments

What Satanic arguments...?

Your sceptical suppositions do not sway me from my own speculations

What speculations? At what point did I ever speculate? I am going by what scripture says. You're the one injecting entire volumes into the narrative. You're the one assuming that God made several commands that scripture never mentions. You're the one speculating that we all both existed and sinned pre-earth. At what point did I speculate anything?

which I see as being very easily supported in the Biblical language

What Biblical language supports any of the above mentioned speculations?

Are you actually going to address the argument I made? Or are you just going to dismiss it as "a sophisticated whitewash"? Can you perhaps point out any flaws in my argument?

I thought I did - if we accept your suppositions then we have GOD treating HIS newly created innocent children in a most unloving and unrighteous manner, turning them over to HIS worst enemy's mercies, which of course goes against the whole tenor of the Bible story.

The argument you called a sophisticated whitewash was my claim that Adam did no wrong in looking for a mate... How is Adam's innocence in this a supposition that God is somehow unrighteous? Where does God's worst enemy come into Adam looking for a mate?

My suppositions are at least within ordinary acceptance of the goodness of GOD including that they sinned by their own free will and GOD did not adjudicate them as sinners because the serpent deceived them, an unrighteous injustice.

So... method c) as per my OP. All you're doing is proving me right, Ted.

Maybe ...

It's been fun but I feel like when my son was a two year old and got onto asking why a million times - I wanted to help him understand but it was obvious he understood nothing about he answers and it became tedious.

Whatever excuse you need to escape the debate, by all means.

I met this same attitude in self defence seminars when there was a "what if" monkey in attendance.

Your entire dogma is one big "what if"! "What if we all actually existed prior to earth at which point we sinned, then came to earth to be cleansed in order for us to later be a suitable bride to God". How is this not a what-if?

And the "maybe" you just ripped out of nowhere was attached to a very valid alternative to your unjustified assumption that Adam was evil for... exploring. It is a very valid "what if" to suggest that God allowed Adam to be single.

The hypocrisy is amusing. You propose a theory (that Adam's explorations was a sign of evil), and when I propose a counter-theory, suddenly it's a "what-if" monkey as you phrase it. So you make valid theories... and your opponents simply make "what-if" monkeys. Bravo

They thought their ability to creatively think of a problem I couldn't answer meant that I was a failure and they were a winner

Adam's explorations was not a problem you could not answer, instead it was an alternate explanation for why Adam's explorations do not automatically make him evil. You seem to be annoyed by the fact that I'm simply debating with you... on a debate site.

Ted, if you want to preach without question, why are you on a debate site? Why not convert your dojo into a church?

[ttruscott]

Again, God never commanded against this so Adam was not being "evil".

When you speak so didactically it moves me to ask for your proof... you don't know what they talked about and the few sentences mentioned in the story are probably not the full measure of their communication.

Very well let me rephrase; nowhere in scripture does God ever command against Adam's explorations and so to assume he did is an unjustified assumption.

GOD had Eve coming to be Adam's wife. What is the purpose of allowing him to look for his mate among the animals? That is, why would GOD resort to this tactic of letting him search through the animals for his mate IF Adam was faithfully following GOD's will for him, that is, willing to do whatever GOD wanted him to do, that is, in a state of righteousness and faith? Why did GOD have to first bring him all the animals and show him that they were unsuitable to be his help meet? If Adam was willing to believe GOD, why didn't HE just tell him that an animal was not what HE wanted and that HE had Eve planned already? This situation is better explained by a rebellious Adam than by a righteous Adam...

Looking at the text and only the text, there is no indication that Adam had ever sinned prior to eating the fruit.

No indication? You surely must mean no proof to which I agree but Adam's weird behaviour with the animals and the fact that both he and Eve are labeled as naked (symbol for sinful) and as cunning with evil by the same word used to describe the serpents evil AND the fact that when he ate and his eyes were opened and he saw his sin, his nakedness not his eating, are certainly indications whether one accepts them as enough to form a positive interpretation of the story to accept his sin before eating or not.

[ttruscott]

IF Adam had been told to reject the Satanic arguments

What Satanic arguments...?

The arguments used by Satan to entice others to see that his rebellion to YHWH's claims were justified.

Your sceptical suppositions do not sway me from my own speculations

What speculations? At what point did I ever speculate? I am going by what scripture says.

You sound like a Christian from a very fundamentalist sect. All understanding of scripture is an interpretation, not a truth, a supposition on our part it is true but an interpretation nevertheless. And an interpretation is a speculation about the meaning of the words... "going by what scripture says" often means I have never heard this verse explained this way before or have never accepted that interpretation. Only your interpretation is the possible meaning of what scripture says, eh? Heard it all before.

You're the one injecting entire volumes into the narrative. You're the one assuming that God made several commands that scripture never mentions.

Yes. But there is no sin unless the law is broken, 1 John 3:4 Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness., yet in heaven pre-earth the Satanic rebellion was defeated to be sent to earth after its creation, that is, the serpent arrived in the newly made garden already evil, and did not become a sinner there. This proves to me that before the creation of the physical universe there was law and free will and Satan et al broke the law by their free will and were condemned. It is logical to assume that Satan was very persuasive in his arguments to justify his rebellion to YHWH's claims and HIS law.

This interpretation is not an interjection at all rather logical extensions of what must have happened according to what we know about GOD's legal system and HIS righteousness. Not a 'what if' but an 'IF this then that.'

You're the one speculating that we all both existed and sinned pre-earth. At what point did I speculate anything?

Of course I am. You are speculating that the though you do not believe it is true, the Bible teaches that orthodoxy is correct and we are created on earth are you not? If not, what is all the argument about?

which I see as being very easily supported in the Biblical language

What Biblical language supports any of the above mentioned speculations?

All the Bible language that provides me with the interpretations I have been writing about forever, over and over and over again... How could you miss them?