Unfortunately we tend to approach Christian narrative in a way you would approach gambling in a casino. You walk into a casino, and you place an existential bet that one of the many denominational perspective is the correct one.
Firstly, It seems like a very narrow perspective on God who wouldn’t only have complete awareness of really, but also would have broader view of various “could have been” possibilities and tangents.
Secondly, it’s a rather narrow approach when it comes to interpretive “unknowns”. The problem with many denominations is precisely that they are very quick to pour concrete over their systematic theology, and avoid about approaching Christian narrative as a range of possibilities as opposed to a dot one must land on in order to get a ticket to heaven.
I think we should teach range and let individuals decide, as opposed on zeroing in on a narrative… in which the implication is that if that position is wrong, then everyone behind that position were wrong.
Think about the implication of Adventist eschatology if we are landing on a dot instead of providing range. If it happens to be something else… Adventists would be the last ones to recognize that