> I don't understand how it could. For, as we can see very clearly later on (Gen 4, for example), God has not forsaken them. And, though God does precipitate a great flood, he does elect to save some specimen of man - man who is tainted by the knowledge of good and evil, mind you. But, had man's spiritual death been caused by his eating from the tree, why would God then turn around and save him from destruction?

Questions about what God "would" or "would not" do are almost always unanswerable -- here's a person with an infinitely complex mind, someone the Bible shows men misinterpreting time and again. It's not easy and sometimes a bit presumptuous to attempt to answer a question about why God would do something. However, in this case I don't think it's too hard to hint at the answer. God created people to be in communion with him. Prior to the fall from the Garden of Eden, that communion existed. When they ate the fruit, a spiritual death (aka, separation from God) occurred. Naturally, given a God with infinite power to love and forgive, God wanted to close that separation and be in communion with humankind once again. The reason why it isn't terribly simple is that God, whatever his reasons, granted us freewill and has not revoked it. Hence, we have the ability, even if not the right, to refuse to return to God. But it doesn't mean God is going to stop trying.

In the Garden of Eden, the choices of Adam and Eve brought death upon themselves. God wants to give life back.

> Where? I can't seem to find it. The next most appropriate reference I can find is the death of Moses (Deu 34:5-7), and this is very clearly a physical death enacted for lack of faith in the LORD.

I wish I could give you exact references, but I don't have any on hand at the moment. If I run across anything more concrete, I'll elaborate for you. However, try browsing the New Testament. Where Jesus, and later Paul, talk about the opportunity for life made possible by Christ's crucifixion, they often speak of Adam. In some cases, Jesus is referred to as the "second Adam," bringing life where the "first" Adam brought about death.

> Me too. It's been a good argument, though...

Have we been arguing? I didn't think so.