Your interpretation brings to mind two thoughts; one being fear based, and another relating to self awareness of having wisdom or knowledge.

Consider a child who is naïve about many things. Consider that naivety in the face of the concept 'what he doesn't know won't hurt him' paradigm (or as adults).

It could follow that with knowledge comes pain. That with awareness comes emotional pain. (Not to mention what other's have said about the interpretation of our temporal existence; finitude, mortality and death-physical pain sort-a-speak.) — 3017amen

I think you are forgetting the balance. There has been pain and fear as long as there has been life. This is evidenced through survival instincts, which all species possess, and which all work through feeling and emotion. Although it is true that knowledge and self-awareness can bring more pain and fear, they can also bring more joy and pleasure.

For example, we would not have art without the rational mind, and I know that my mind is my favorite personal playground.

And so how that relates to the concept of fear based behavior is interesting. If we are to fear reverence (God), how do we develop that fear? I'm thinking that as the OP suggested earlier, that somehow awareness of wisdom or knowledge in and of itself imparts or results in a sense of fear too. Otherwise we are just naïve and go about our business care free. The tree of knowledge then becomes a bitter sweet concept viz. the joy that wisdom imparts, but the pain it brings about accordingly. — 3017amen

To answer your question, that I underlined, above; my thought is that the development of the rational aspect of mind isolates us -- promoting that fear.

You can not know what is in my mind unless I tell you, or share my thoughts with you, and vice versa. The conscious aspect of mind is private, internal, and processes thought. The unconscious aspect of mind is shared, works between life, and processes emotion. Although both aspects share information, there is a serious difference in how they work. Bonding works through emotion and the unconscious, as does the reading of body language. The unconscious bonds us; the conscious isolates us.

I don't want to go too far off topic, but you could look at Jung's collective and communal unconscious to see that some of what religion studies and calls "God" is the collective unconscious. This is why "God" is unknowable.

Gee

My interpretation of the Garden of Eden is a little different. I see the story as a metaphor with both literal and figurative sides and many layers of understanding. But I am not religious, so I don't view it from a religious perspective, and for this reason I tend to remove references to "punishment", as I see that as a religious teaching tool, rather than as essential to the meaning and understanding of the story.

I study consciousness and mind, and I firmly believe that religions also study consciousness, but their interpretation or theory of consciousness is called "God". So when I apply my thinking to the story of the Garden, this is what I find:

First note that Adam and Eve are symbolic names. Adam in the old original texts is "human", or man, and Eve in the old texts is "bringer of life", or woman.

Adam and Eve chose to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge; therefore, Adam and Eve chose knowledge. What does that mean in terms of mind and evolution? Can any specie choose knowledge? Can a plant or any animal or bird choose to know concepts? Can they make decisions on knowledge that has been processed and thrashed around into ideas and concepts?

I don't think so. I think that a rational aspect of mind is necessary to do these things. We have always believed that the rational mind is what separates us from other species. So I see the story in the Garden as an explanation of the evolution of the rational mind, or you could say that Adam and Eve attained that level of conscciousness. So what does this have to do with good v evil? Original sin? or even mortality?

Well, the mortality question is easy. All life lives and then dies, but it takes a rational mind to understand time, math, and truly understand the limits of mortality.

What about original sin? Was there any sin before the rational mind? No. Sin requires intent, and intent requires a rational aspect of mind.

What about good v evil? Well the opposite of good is not evil, it is bad. Good and bad have always existed as long as opinions and feelings existed. Even a dog can feel good if he is healthy and bad if he is sickly, but there is no evil there.

The opposite of evil is innocence. A wolf that kills a lamb is just hungry and maybe bringing nourishment to its cubs -- that is not evil. Actual evil requires thought; it requires intent, it requires a rational aspect of mind. War is evil, genocide is evil, corrupting innocence is evil.

So religion is right; good and bad were always here, but evil did not come into the world until the rational aspect of mind evolved.

Gee