First supplementary question: If knowledge is good, then why didn't we inherit it from Adam and Eve who obviously gained it? Why do we inherit the original sin (sticky) which is terribly un-useful, but not the knowledge (sadly unsticky) that's clearly useful? Are we being unfairly punished for possessing the proceeds of crime? We don't have it and didn't dispose of it (Is there a lawyer in the house?)
The 'standard' Christian interpretation of the fall comes from St Augustine. He interprets knowledge as moral
knowledge, in modern terms 'conscience' which we do have (or at least Augustine thinks we do). As for original sin, a soft interpretation is that it only means we have the capacity to sin. There is, in all fairness, a nice coherence here: since the fall we know
right from wrong thus we have the capacity to act
in a manner which is right or wrong.
However a strong reading of original sin, and probably closer to Augustine's thinking is that it is 'sexually transmitted'. Sin for Augustine is all about sex. He himself had a notoriously wild youth in Rhodes; as a young man he famously wrote "God give me chastity ... just not yet!" He also kept a mistress for 18 years and had a son with her (Ambrose). When he converted to Christinaity (he was a Maniceist before) he dumped this woman even though he was still desperately in love with her. It seems to me that there is a lot of personal psychology going on in his account of sin as primarily sexual. Funny to think that mainstream Christian theology may come from one guy's deep seated self-hatred
I say no need to call a lawyer, we need a therapist.
Is knowledge intrinsically good or bad?
I tend to agree with Anfauglir's pragmatic approach. However it is worth noting that the Chinese philosophy of Taoism asserts very strongly that knowledge is inherently bad as it interferes with the spontaneous in us. A view I must confess a little sympathy with.