It's quite right. But I still need to be sure that what I think is right, in fact is right. So far I do not see that there is a case where a rhetorical question is not, in truth, strictly a misuse of language for dramatic effect (iow, "slang").

It is important to read it right, because those people were pretty smart. What they're saying goes much deeper than what you are gaining from it, and I blame translation mostly, but also deeply established ignorance through false doctrines over the centuries (the majority of people tend to believe whatever comes to mind in the moment and don't care much for the accuracy of their beliefs, just the security of them).

The tree was already in the garden, and it was growing. It was a tree of the knowledge of good and evil, so the knowledge of good and evil was already growing in the midst of their garden.

Can you see already, the poetry in the language? The word "ets" (עץ) that is used in Genesis 2:9, is mostly translated as "wood" - a thing that is useful for constructing. Of course, it is a wood that grows. So the knowledge of good and evil was a thing growing in their midst that was useful for working with (Genesis 1:28 "subduing the earth"). But God had said "do not eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil".

What does it mean to eat fruit? It is the source of sustenance and growth, and of pleasure. Just as Eve saw in Genesis 3:6 the fruit was "good for sustenance" and "satisfying of lusts", as well as seeing that she could become more shrewd by it (that is the real value that the tree had over the others, afterall).

So what that translates to, is a picture of a world where they were already learning of good and evil, and they were simply living according to God's expectation of them (He saw all He had made, "that it was good"). But then she was tempted, and fell to the discontentment of thinking that she could have more satisfaction if she ate of it.

In order to really understand why what she did was so bad, we need to look at what it means to eat the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil. It isn't so simple as "missing the mark" as some might say.

To use the produce (fruit) of the knowledge of good and evil as a way of life (sustenance and pleasure), is to reckon that sometimes evil can serve our interests well. That's where the sin exists, and you can see it manifested in the ways of the world, as normal business practice.

In a paradise, we expect everyone to only do what is good, don't we? We don't expect robbers and murderers and liars etc, because those things bring hell upon the world rather than paradise.

So that is what they did. They chose to bring hell upon the earth - though, they didn't know that was exactly what they were doing, because they had been deceived and it crept in gradually. Their son murdered his own brother, and I don't imagine that anyone who had walked with God their whole life would have chosen to bring a hell like that upon the earth.

Anyhow, so we have the situation at that point in the story, that they had immediately forgotten God's character (1 John 4:8 "anyone who does not love does not know God, for God is love" and 1 John 4:18 "There is no fear in love, because fear is of torment" - yet Genesis 3:10 shows us that they had forgotten love: "I heard you, and I was afraid so I hid myself").

So if we are reading God's character consistent with the authors of the bible that say God is love, we should not be finding that Adam was right to be afraid of God, and that is your primary contention.

Remember what Jesus said "which one of you, if your child asks for bread, will give him a stone?".. and so it is, that when a child messes up, if they know that they can trust the parent's love, they confess "daddy, I broke it!" and Daddy, being one who loves his son, doesn't say "you fool! Go to the bad corner!". No, but the father full of love says "awww, now it's broken, that's sad. We have to fix it".

(But there is a type of child who doesn't confess, and there might be different reasons for that).

So we see that Adam and Eve were hiding from God - they were afraid to confess because they didn't trust Him, and it isn't uncommon for people to think that way about God - which is the main thrust of John 3:16 "God indeed loved the world, He even gave up His only-begotten son so that anyone believing in Him should not perish".

There is a useful observation in 2 Peter 2:19 "whatever overcomes a person, to that he is enslaved". Remember what Jesus said of the devil? "he was a murderer from the beginning, and when he lies, it is his native language".

So they had been overcome by a liar and a murderer. Their minds had already forgotten that God is love, and that He desires to heal the sick and broken. So it was wisdom, not punishment, that caused God to say "what if he now reaches out to take from the tree of life, and lives forever?", and you might think about that more in context of some of the greatest villains we have known in history. There are some people that the world is better off to be without.

Don't forget too, that it is not written that they were created immortal - but that "if they should reach out, and eat of the tree of life" then they could live forever.

As for the curses "thorns and thistles shall spring up for you, and by the sweat of your brow you will eat" - a statement of a knowledge of the consequence (not punishment - authorities who use those words interchangeably are intellectually dishonest). It is what happens to a person's soul when they realise there is no escape from the system, and that the system doesn't value them personally. They are enslaved, a disposable resource, their sense of life (the "me/who I am") is stolen from them, and rather than enjoying their days, work is a chore. Likewise for the woman, who rather than seeing a baby as a bundle of joy, sees it as a burden, and rather than being fulfilled by her man, is constantly trying to fill the God-shaped hole in her heart with him - because he is no longer the image of God (1 John 4:16), he is a shell of a man that never quite makes her complete.

It is again, not a punishment of wrath to subdue God's anger (because a noble person doesn't feel that way - wrath is rooted in insecurity and it is a fallen nature that behaves that way), rather, consistent with His noble character as Isaiah 27:4 describes, He is simply saying what is to come so that His critics would trust that He is to be feared (Job 1:6, Job 1:9).