I honestly don’t have much to say about the general plot, so I’ll just ramble a bit (or a lot) on the topic of the tree of knowledge.
In the text, God explicitly tells Adam not to eat from the “tree of the knowledge and good and evil”. Doing so, God says, will result in his death. Now, taking out the “good and evil” part, we are left with the “tree of knowledge” which is essentially the core of what Adam and Eve consumed. By eating the fruit, they gained “knowledge” which resulted in their shame of nakedness and subsequently their banishment from Eden. The important point here is not that they gained knowledge, but that they gained knowledge that God did not want them to gain. One way of putting it is that they freed themselves from the shell of ignorance that God had cast over them—whether God did so because he wanted to remain superior, as the Serpent said, or because he wanted to protect Adam and Eve is up for debate.
Before they ate of the fruit, Adam and Eve’s knowledge constituted solely of what God provided them. Adam was given the right to name the animals by God, and Adam was given Eve as a companion by God. Their world, everything that they knew, consisted of what God allowed them to have. Because everything that they knew was brought in conjunction with everything that they had, they never had yearnings and were thus fully or mostly content. Of course, the exception to this is when God mentioned the tree of knowledge which shouldn’t be eaten from as it is a piece of knowledge that they knew existed but would not be allowed to have. The fruit of the tree, which contains “foreign” knowledge, was in essence the only link they had with the world outside their own. It was the key to the door that locked them in ignorance and, arguably, happiness.
When they eat from the tree, it becomes immediately clear that they have gained foreign knowledge due to their embarrassment at being naked. As far as I can tell, they did not wear clothes prior to this and did not have contact with anything that did wear clothes (well, maybe God did but whatever). To be embarrassed means that the embarrassed person has an ideal image of what they should be or what should be occurring and knows that the reality is lacking, and thus feel shame at not being ideal. The fact that Adam and Eve had this “ideal” image meant that they had gained knowledge of it—knowledge that God did not want them to gain. Because their world no longer consisted solely of the knowledge God granted them, God knew that they could no longer be contained in the world he created. Thus, he cast them out of Eden to enter the “real” world, or to be more accurate, the one which suited the knowledge that they had. He also made it so that they would have to suffer in order to live and make them able to die. On both the former and later, he may have given humans suffering and mortality so that they would not be able to achieve what they did in Eden—to become fully content, with everything that they now knew accompanied by everything that they had.
Finally, on the topic of the “good and evil” part of the tree of knowledge (which I realize I brushed off without much fanfare), I will give an explanation using society’s general definition of both terms. In Eden, the reason why there was no good or evil was because their contentment—that of Adam of Eve’s—were fully realized. They had everything that they wanted and nothing that they did not want (again, the tree being the exception), and thus had no reason to commit either the act of good or evil; in a sense, they were simply “existing”. However, as they gained the “forbidden” knowledge and their world extended to the one beyond Eden, limitations (suffering and mortality) were put on them by God and as a result a discrepancy arose between what they knew existed and what they actually had. Thus, assuming that it is human nature to attempt to close this discrepancy and gain everything that they know exists, they chose methods to do so that suited each individual. Those who try to close the gap in conjunction and co-operation with others and for the benefit of society as a whole are considered “good,” while those who try to close the gap in opposition to and by taking from others and for the harm of society as a whole are considered “evil”. Of course these are ridiculously simplified definitions, but they serve their purposes here. In any case, because “good and evil” comes from the yearning of humanity to gain what they do not have, I consider it to be a byproduct rather than the core of the tree of knowledge. What’s important is the knowledge itself and that it goes beyond humans means and what God originally intended.