Adam and Eve should've eaten the whole tree.

My opponent's first contention only needs two observations to refute. First, God did not speak English, so by my opponent's statement of misnomers, the entire English language is a misnomer. The English language is entirely man-made and developed ab chao [1] from Celtic, German, and French [2]. Second, the transformation of a noun-adjective combination to a descriptive prepositional phrase is valid. For example, the Second World War could be restated as the Second War of the World and a Tree of Apples could be restated as an Apple Tree. This nullifies my opponent's semantic rebuttal. Regardless, for my opponent to prove that it was the entire tree that contained the entire knowledge of good and evil, he would have to refer to earlier translations of the Bible, closer to those conceded to be not misnomers. My opponent's second-contention rebuttal is an invalid non-sequitur. To say that because eating of the tree results in death, eating the tree results in knowledge, doesn't follow. I refer again to the verse: . http://www.biblegateway.com... "The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. And the LORD God commanded the man, 'You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die. ' " My opponent cannot derive his point, that eating more of the tree would yield more knowledge, from this verse. My opponent's third-contention rebuttal tries to construe the word "know" so that it refers to acquaintance (definition 4) rather than the other three definitions, yet my opponent himself makes a critical error. To say "I know of evil" refers to acquaintance, while "I know evil" refers to apprehending "clearly and with certainty" (definition 1). My opponent's "further research" does not verify any of his claims, because none of the entries [3] use "of" in their context quotes or state the use of "know of" in comparison with "know. " Further, none of the definitions, provided or not [3], suggest my opponent's assertion, that "we have not attained complete comprehension. " Lastly, for my opponent to construe the meaning of God, he should have sourced an earlier, non-English manuscript, such as the Dead Sea Scrolls. It is understood by both sides that eating of the tree brings spiritual death. My opponent has not demonstrated To my case: My opponent asserts that the resolution is not to be compared to other courses of action, yet it contains the word should, which has, in context, the following meaning [4]: "must; ought (used to indicate duty, propriety, or expediency): You should not do that. " To make a recommendation favors one course of action over others [5]; therefore, the other courses of action must be considered in the context of the resolution. My opponent addresses none of them because he knows them to be better courses of action, because my opponent's recommendation trades one's spiritual life for knowledge. My first alternative is objectively better than my opponent's because God, the omniscient omnibenevolent creator would know the best course of action for Adam and Eve. . http://www.biblegateway.com... "The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. And the LORD God commanded the man, 'You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die. ' " My second alternative is also better than my opponents because Eve would gain all the knowledge of good and evil to share to Adam while Adam could retain his spiritual life. My third alternative is also better than my opponent's because Adam would retain his spiritual knowledge and retain God's favor. All of my alternatives spare Adam his punishment: "To Adam he said, 'Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, "You must not eat of it," Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life. It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return. ' " . http://www.biblegateway.com... My first alternative would spare Eve her punishment: " 'I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you. ' " So, by following my suggestion, Adam could have spared the toil of life. By following my first suggestion, Eve would have had less painful childbirths and sexism would have developed to a much lesser degree. Because the resolution inflicts these punishments and causes spiritual death only for knowledge an all-knowing all-loving God would prefer man not have, Adam and Eve should not have eaten any of the tree, much less the whole tree. The resolution is negated. [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] . http://www.englishclub.com... [3] . http://dictionary.reference.com... [4] . http://dictionary.reference.com... [5] . http://en.wikipedia.org...