Origin of Sin, Part Deux

Not much of an assumption. We all speak according to our own understanding. This is no new revelation.

This can be backed up by plenty of other Scripture. How many have seen heaven. Paul said:
But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. (1 Corinthians 2:9)
Paul did not know what heaven was like.

Job himself said:
For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth: (Job 19:25)
--He did not know exactly what this latter day would be like. But he knew there would be a redeemer.
None of us know what heaven is like.
The facts are in evidence.

God's words are recorded. They are God's very words.
Job's words are recorded. They are Job's words. That puts them along the line of opinion, not absolute truth. This does justice to inspiration. It upholds it. It gives credence to whose words are whose and how much weight we should attribute to each. Later Job's "friends" will come and falsely accuse him. How much weight will we assign to their words? They will be accurately recorded as they were spoken. But were they true in content?

That is what I said, so why are you saying it is incorrect?

I realize that.

Read more carefully my post, and what Satan said.
He said: "Thou shalt NOT surely die." That was a lie. They did die. They died immediately albeit, a spiritual death. We discussed this in another thread. Young's literal translation: "Dying thou shalt die". In other words the degenerative process began immediately.

How am I doing that? The narrator simply records that which is being said. Satan spoke a lie and it was recorded as a lie. Where is your confusion? It was accurately recorded.

The narrator simply narrates. He is telling the story, recording what happened, who said what, etc. You have unwittingly made my point. While Job may not be accurate in every word he utters...
If the narrator is simply narrating how does he make Job's words any more or less accurate than they already are? He is objective, simply telling a story.

The narrator is attributing those words to the relatives of Job. He is narrating what happened. If he isn't, then why does he use the pronoun "they" so many times? It was "they" who accused God of bringing evil upon Job, not the narrator.

I do not differentiate between a "narrator" and the actual individuals involved. "They" means "they," not a narrator. How do you get out of that? I take the story literally.