Adam and Eve should've eaten the whole tree.

I will start by backing my own case. My opponent attacks my first contention by stating examples of fruit tree names. Unfortunately, he fails to notice the unique origin and format of the name "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil". To start, while all of the examples given by my opponent were names created by humans, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is one of the few names ever created directly from the mouth of God. Since God is the only being who can see and judge objectively, all other names are misnomers. My opponent also ignores a gargantuan difference in his example names. While most other fruit tree names state the fruit first and the word tree second, this particular tree follows a completely different style. Therefore, all analytics on this comparison are null. On my second contention I would like to start by conceding defeat on the relevancy of my evidence. I did not read the verse as carefully as I should have. This does not however, mean the contention is defeated. To replace the original evidence I offer the following familiar verse in its stead. "And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 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. " . http://www.biblegateway.com... Notice that God says that Adam will die if he eats OF the tree. Of in this case implies that only a small portion being eaten will cause death. The corollary to this, combined with my other points, is that eating the whole tree would provide more or all knowledge. My opponent's argument to my third contention relies completely on an incorrect analysis of the evidence. "And the LORD God said, 'The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever. ' " Genesis 3:22 . http://www.biblegateway.com... Note that God says, ". .. knowing good and evil. " My opponent's supposition would be correct had God said, ". .. knowing OF good and evil," but he doesn't. God is stating that we as humans have had a taste of knowledge, but we have not attained complete comprehension. know verb, knew, known, knowï¿½ing, noun –verb (used with object) 1. to perceive or understand as fact or truth; to apprehend clearly and with certainty: I know the situation fully. 2. to have established or fixed in the mind or memory: to know a poem by heart; Do you know the way to the park from here? 3. to be cognizant or aware of: I know it. 4. be acquainted with (a thing, place, person, etc. ), as by sight, experience, or report: to know the mayor. "know. " Dictionary. com Unabridged. Random House, Inc. 22 Oct. 2010. . http://dictionary.reference.com...;. Further research (the above definition) shows definitively that unless an "of" is after the word "know" it means to know of. In the Spanish language the word "conocer" would replace the "know" in this context. "God does not assure instant death, but death. However, this distinction is only evidence for my case. " How the distinction between death, instant death, and spiritual death benefits my opponent's case is beyond me. Let us follow his flawed logic. If God just meant to say that if Adam ate of the fruit he would die of age, then that means if Adam didn't eat it he would live forever. That would be awesome for Adam, but this conflicts with a point my opponent brought up: only if Adam eats of the tree of life will he live forever. Otherwise, what would be the point of having a tree of life when everyone is immortal anyways. You can see how this logic quickly runs into itself. After covering my case my opponent offered several alternative actions that, while humorous, in no way support his case. The topic was simply stated and in no way offers points for alternate actions, so while I understand what my opponent was trying to do judges cannot vote him up for this.