Did God intend humans to sin.

I still assert that bible nowhere says that God intended man to sin nor that God created sin. As a matter of fact you have not seen a single verse pro has quoted that has the word "sin" in it, or even it correlating God creating man to sin. What you have got is Pro's eisegesis and philosophy forced into the main text he uses that don't support his argument. Pro really only has two verses he's trying to build his argument on Col 1:16 and Isaiah 45:7 which when actually studied are not in favor of pro's position. I will at first address the few other verses used before i do get to those. Pro writes"Also, god knows the future, because the future is what he wants to happen:" I would like to make mention that foreknowledge is not the same as predetermination. Read Duet 30:19-20 19 "This day I call the heavens and the earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live 20 and that you may love the Lord your God.." Biblically we know God knows the end from to beginning. To assume because God knows all than that is what he wants to happen leaves you in a tough spot with verses where God tells man to chose and notice something in these verses. Pro adamantly affirms that God intended man to sin but what does God want man to chose? death( Other words separation from God Romans 3:23) No, but LIFE. When you take the affirmative position that God intended man to sin once you open the Bible you'll see God actually says the opposite from you. Ill add also that God intended for man to Love Him but i stated that previously. Now to the only two verses that Pro attempt to build his argument on Col 1:16 and Isaiah 45:7. Ill start with Colossians 1:16, its blatantly obvious what Paul is trying to convey and that is not sin but the physical universe "For by Him all things were created"John 1:3 says that Christ created the world. Hebrews 1:2 says the Son made the universe. The Father is the originating cause (source) and the Son is the means by which the world came into being (Rev. 3:14).The extent of the Son"s creation is "all" things. This includes the entire universe whether material or immaterial, heaven or earth. "that are in heaven and that are on earth visible and invisible" This phrase refers to the material universe, visible and invisible, space and the physical universe. He made everything that we can see and cannot see. The point Paul is making is that Jesus is God and creator of the Universe because the people in Colossae were polytheist. The second verse and probably everyone who tries to make this argument uses is Isaiah 45:7. Notice that proponents Love to ONLY quote this verse from the KJV knowing that every other translation got it more accurate (not to say kjv is wrong). Im glad pro put up a link to his source from the Hebrew lexicon, I'm not sure though if He actually read it though or thinks know one will actually look at it. Pro writes " please know that according to old testament Hebrew lexicon, the word "Ra`a" means evil, not calamity or disaster." If you simply scroll down the page PRO provided you see Ra'a used in terms in the OT such as "afflicted , bring disaster , brought calamity , brought harm , damaged grieved , hard, harm , harming , hostile , hurt , suffer , suffer harm , treat me so badly , treat you worse , treated , treated us harshly , went hard , work calamity . So it doesn't take to much to realize that there are two renderings to the Hebrew word Ra'a, one ethical the other such things like calamity,disasters and afflictions. I would assert that each translation got it right meaning that when the kjv uses the word "evil" its not in the ethic moral sense. Lets first look at the immediate text. The first thing to note is the antithetic parallelisms: light is the opposite of darkness, and "disaster." is the opposite of "peace". The second thing to note is that 'evil' (ra') is opposed to shalom (peace) and not to tov (which would be closer to, but not exclusively meaning, moral goodness). This would argue that the ethical element is not present at all. For example, in Isaiah 5:20 ra and tov are contrasted, in an ethical context, as are light and darkness. And in Ps 34.14, all of the concepts are related: Turn from evil (ra') and do good (tov); seek peace (shalom) and pursue it. By abandoning moral evil and doing moral good to his neighbor, the Israelite would insure peace in the community and in the land. Another case of clear ethical contrasts (ra' and tov) is in Amos 5.15: "Hate evil, love good; maintain justice in the courts." All one should do is read the ENTIRE chapter of Isaiah and you'll see that God is telling the children of Israel that He will bring them to safety from all their enemies. Just look at verse 19 in the same chapter when the LORD GOD says " I the LORD speaks RIGHTEOUSNESS, i declare al things that are RIGHT", thats a blatant contradiction of someones understanding of verse 7 if the entire chapter God speaks of righteousness. So if biblically, lexicalology, and Hermeneutically we understand that the two verses used do not in any way point that God created sin. I've proven through scripture that sin originated with Lucifer. Pro's response was "The fact that god created something as evil as Lucifer..." This shows me that you didn't read all of Ezekiel 28. Just read verse 15 like i pointed out in my second argument Ezekiel 28:15 - Thou [wast] perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created.. Lucifer was created PERFECT not evil as you have mistakenly claimed. Again Pro is off on my assertions when he states "Con provided a quote that mentions that "in him there's no darkness at all," god himself still said "I form the light, and create darkness." Pro clearly misses the difference of Gods nature and his creation their obviously not the same. Ill point out again That in God there is NO darkness (evil/sin) so how could God create something that is against His nature? There was no answer for this. Pro writes: When it's daytime in the US, there is light. At the same time in China, there is darkness. Light and darkness can exist at the same time, and it's not impossible." I didn't think that was difficult to understand but what i mean by the same time is if you have a empty room with just a light and you turn it on there will be no darkness. Darkness and light cannot exist in the same time and place they do not mix. So God could not create sin because He is light. I charged Pro to prove biblically that Gods ultimate purpose for man was to sin and his response was: "Nope. There was no mention of any ultimate purposes in the resolution. The resolution asks "Did god intend humans to sin?" I need to show that the god of the bible intended humans to sin, if it's his ultimate purpose or not." Pro you do know the definition of intend is -have (a course of action) as one's purpose or objective; plan. So again show me verses that it was Gods purpose. Pro ask : Who created our earthly nature? Colossians 3:5" Well this question is simple. First our fleshly or earthly nature was not "created" but came about after the "Fall" read Romans 5:12 Sin started with man when they listened to Satan and disobeyed God. When God created man He said it was "Very Good" Genesis 26-31. So the assertions you've made about man and even the Lucifer being made to sin or with sin are not Biblical in the slightest sense. Pro ask: Con, did god make us WITH free will and WITHOUT the capacity to read people's minds? If yes, then why couldn't god make us WITH free will and WITHOUT the capacity to sin?"Pro the argument is not free will itself but that you cannot coerce someone to Love you it has to be given freely.God created us with the intention to Love Him ,Ive given plenty of verses for that. So could God have created us not to sin? Yes but in turn we wouldn't be able to Love which was the Intention for creating humans Duet 6:5 READ!