Thanks for reading. Well, let me try to demonstrate what I mean by interpretation with some of those.

"You shall not murder" - and yet, I imagine, if I loftily refrain from murder even if that might be the only way to prevent, say, a school shooting from escalating, I would justly be regarded with contempt. There is such thing as a "greater evil" - but how can we make sense of this? Well, layered interpretation! We lay the commandment against murder alongside the great exhortations of the New Testament and thus put it into perspective, and we learn that we can trace the rule against murder to a root based in love and compassion, but at the same time find that, very much arguably, when love and not-murdering is at odds, we ought to bite the bullet and choose murder. This is why Christianity, despite being peace loving in nature, has historically never been a truly pacifist position.

Likewise for "You shall not commit adultery" and "You shall not steal". Apart from the fact that we can derive these from the Great Commandment, so that we can know why we ought not to do these things before the Lord, we also stand to gain by reading these commandments with New Testament knowledge. Jesus Himself certainly affirms the validity of these commandments, and yet it is important to note that He very clearly showed kindness to, dined with, and ministered to people explicitly identified as thieves and fornicators. This gives us perspective on what a sin is vis-a-vis what a sinner is. The proud religious leaders of His time were certainly very aware of these commandments and meant to keep them, and yet the difference between their attitude and Jesus' shows clearly that different levels of interpretative understanding of Scripture can yield vastly different results.

Ergo, I still contend that every bit of Scripture deserves to be looked deeper into, no matter how literal they may seem.