That’s not what it says. It says " on the day thou eatest thereof thou shall surely die.” Or, translate differently, on the day you eat the fruit will be sure of dying. We are all, after that day, sure of dying. Indeed, it is the “knowledge” of that evil that is one human tragedy.
Almost all versions that I am looking at this link say either you will die when you eat or on the day you eat.
What are God’s qualities? Anyway, God Himself said that He does Evil!
God clearly said in the scripture that He does Evil. You need Evil intention for an evil act. Therefore, God has Evil intention.
Is that your translation? I am afraid to say that I would prefer the valid translation on the web.
So we have been reading different versions of the OT, and barking at the wrong trees, it sounds like.
If you accepted God is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent, then you are accepting God must also be the most righteous and morally good too.
God will do Evil to the evils, then it is right. And it is Good intention.
I am afraid to say that I cannot see how that follows. Moreover, accepting all these qualities, God can certainly create a world, like Heaven, or Paradise without the tree of knowledge, where sin is not possible within. Don’t you agree? If yes, why did God create such a world when sin is possible?
I am afraid to say that I disagree. A Benevolent God cannot have Evil intention; therefore, He cannot do Evil.
You accepted God is omniscient, and blamed God for all his intentions. But if you accepted God is omniscient, then you must accept whatever God does must be right and good. Not accepting the latter is contradicting your positions and arguments.
A benevolent God would do whatever in his power (even if it looks Evil to humans) trying to eradicate Evils, so that Good can prevail. “Eye for an eye, and measure for measure” is also the Biblical codes.
Couldn’t God create us in the first place in Heaven or in a Paradise without the tree of knowledge?
A Benevolent God is not capable of doing Evil. That is why theologians have been thinking about and dealing with the problem of Evil for ages. There should be a difference between a Benevolent God and a Malevolent God.
Everything was God’s plan. Whatever has been created, it was the best for humans from God’s plan. Mere humans cannot question on God’s intention or plans, because humans are not omniscient.
If it was done for Good, then it is what being benevolent means.
NIV translation: “but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”
NLT translation: "except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. If you eat its fruit, you are sure to die.’
Both of these translations support my interpretation.
Once again, I don’t see the reason why you would ask for my opinion on your OP if I already responded to it with my first post.
Sigh. @Corvus, this is for you.
I already explained earlier how according to the relevant text in question, the world was created in six “days” which logically suggests “day” means “era”—or something closer to the sort—and not a 24-hour period like mortal beings (which Adam and Eve were not, at least not in the sense of lifespan and time we know now) imagine.
Obviously when we gained “knowledge” it taught us things man was not intended to know, things like mathematics that led to resulting warfare and invention that resulted in horrible weaponry that not only could, but has in fact almost, wiped out all human life on Earth multiple times. We will likely perish by the knowledge we allegedly, per the text, allowed us to discover. It’s a statistical likelihood at this point. Thus (though of course not explicitly proving as it would have to occur) STRONGLY suggesting the claim “[mankind] will surely (inevitably) die” was the truth and not a lie. Sure, if it doesn’t happen, then it was untrue. But anyone with eyes can see, all it takes is one mistake, as many nuclear close calls were, and we destroy the world and render it unable to host life. This is scientific fact. Case closed.
The OP for whatever reason does not wish to accept this historical and scientific fact and wishes to linger on translated text without a single sense of unpacking or understanding.
I literally “solved” this thread logically long ago, here. Please, don’t expend your energy on what was already resolved.
This topic is effectively over; it’s done. I solved it. All that’s occurred since that moment—aside from the rare insightful remark—is idle bleating from those who’s self-stitched and self-affixed wool remains over their eyes.
Why don’t you answer my question? Could you please answer my question with a yes or no?
So you are saying that an Evil act could be Good!?
I have been just trying to answer the OP’s questions from my point of view. All my posts are based on mainly on the common inference. I am not a specialist in the topic. 
NIV translation certainly does not support your interpretation. NLT translation, however, leaves room for your interpretation and my interpretation since it is ambiguous.
I think my post is answering to your question very clearly. It seems like you are not taking the answers for answer.
No. You are not getting the point here. It just means, any act for prevailing Good is not Evil.
You are conflating Good acts with Evil. It is Good act, not Evil act. That’s what it means.
I am so sorry for the misunderstanding. I just didn’t see that your long post addressed all my points in the OP.
No, you are refusing to answer a simple question. And your answer is not what I asked for. So, again, yes or no?
I don’t understand. You are saying that God does Evil because it is Good. Don’t you see any problem here?
Answers were already given, but you are not understanding the answers.
It has been already explained. What you are describing as Evil is actually Good, which is the nature of being benevolent.
You must use some insight and intuition too in order to understand the religious concepts.
Or maybe you already have fixed mind on something, which refuses to see the logics in the arguments?
I asked a simple question that requires a simple answer. God certainly has plans for everything; that is something I understand and am very familiar with. What I am trying to discuss is, however, the nature of God and creation. You need to provide a simple answer, yes or no, if you are willing to learn a new thing; otherwise, I will leave it all to you and end the discussion since there is no point on discussion when people are not open to the idea that they might be wrong, read it open-minded. So, for the last time, yes or no?
No, I think you are just confusing the usage of terms, which leads to an obvious contradiction that you are not willing to accept. Let me ask you a simple question: Is the act of torturing good or evil?
I have been doing my best answering your questions so far. But your question was not for YES/NO answer. If you cannot accept that, it is up to you.
This is an irrelevant question for the discussion. You need to open a new OP if you want discuss this point.