You didn’t answer the question.
If it’s not officially defined, then what is the option?
The person’s own personal interpretation of Scripture.
Unless you have other options?
A distinction needs to be made between "your own personal interpretation" in the sense of "up for grabs" (unlimited license to say whatever you feel it says) vs. a legitimate liberty of opinion --- within limits --- for Scriptures whose meaning has not been officially defined.
I want you to look at the words "legitimate liberty." And then, the words, "within limits."
"Legitimate liberty" would mean, any of the faithful can in all humility ask the Holy Spirit for, and receive, enlightenment about a Scripture passage; scholars can conduct their textual evaluations and give their conclusions; theologians can dialog back and forth about disputed questions. In all this, we are striving to "have the mind of Christ," striving to "think with the Church" --- for it is the Church which has received the promise that hell and its deviations from the truth shall not prevail.
"Within limits" would mean, without violation of the doctrines and morals which are already a part of the deposit of faith. No matter whether you are one of the sincere faithful, or a scholar/specialist, or an esteemed theologian, you can't obstinately hold and advance opinions contrary to the Faith.
An example from Christology: say you're looking at the verse from Luke 3:52 - "And Jesus advanced in wisdom and age and favor before God and man." Ponder and speculate as you will about the complexities of Jesus' humanity, whether or if His childish and adolescent ignorance interacted with his Divine omniscience, etc. --- but you cannot say He was *not* an adolescent or *not* a man. Nor that He was *only* a man. A lot of Christology has already been defined as dogma: that is, it is required to believed.
An example from Moral Law: "Thou shalt not kill (commit murder)". Ponder and speculate as you will about whether an advanced, synthetically-produced android zygote with artificial DNA--- and with no human parents -- is human or not, and whether it may or may not be experimented with. That's hasn't been fully defined yet. But any zygote with human parents is a human being; producing it outside of a marital sexual union is unethical; destructive experimentation on it ought to be illegal; and killing it is murder. That part is not negotiable at all.
So there are areas you can freely speculate about, form personal opinions, come to scholarly conclusions, etc. --- and areas where you may not.
Is that a tad clearer?
Oops