The Bible contains contradictions

Contradiction 1: Should we love or hate our family? My opponent still contends to the point that Jesus was being hyperbolic. However, I asked Taylor a question, "How do we know what is hyperbolic or not? " My opponent responds CONTEXT! However, no matter where in the Bible the same word is used, it is not hyperbolic. So how can we take one passage that Jesus stated and say it was hyperbolic? Was it hyperbolic when Jesus said the same word when he said that you will be hated of all men? Also, in the Greek it was ALWAYS literal. Oh really? I definitely disagree with this statement altogether. My opponent wishes that Greek was always literal to support his side of the debate. When looking at Greek, we must examine the context to understand what the writer was trying to portray, like every other language. For example, in English there could be different meanings for the word green. The grass is green. (Color) Matt is looking pretty green. (Sick) I need some more green. (Money) If we were to say that green must mean the same thing in every sentence, then the sentences wouldn’t make sense. My opponent’s argument is completely illogical. If we examine the context then we can determine that Jesus is using poetic devices, and we can see that there is no contradiction here. Contradiction 2: Did Jesus know everything? My opponent contends that Jesus, after his Resurrection, achieved his omniscience. However, my opponent fails to realise that the Bible clearly states that "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, and today, and forever. " In other words, Jesus cannot change. He is unchangeable. In order for him to have "Achieved" omniscience, it would have required him to change--which is something he cannot do. Well actually God never changes (I am the Lord, and I do not change” – Malachi 3:6). Jesus is God, but as I stated in my first rebuttal of this contradiction in Luke it talks about how Jesus grows in wisdom (“Jesus grew in wisdom and in stature and in favor with God and all the people” - Luke 2:52). This is not a contradiction due to the nature of the trinity. Contradiction 3: Should a son be held responsible for the father’s sins? My opponent contends that , when a father misleads his family, the effects of that misleading are often felt for generations. This is because the father is being covenantally unfaithful and God has stipulated that there are punishments to breaking the covenant with God. That is the case with these verses that deal with the sins visited upon the children. If a father rejects the covenant of God and takes his family into sin and rejects God, the children will suffer the consequences, often for several generations. Whether or not this is fair is not the issue. Sin is in the world, consequences of sin affected many generations. I will allow him to the argument that a father misleads his family, the effects are felt for generations. However, it is not the child's fault that he is a bastard or an illegitimate child so why should he be not allowed to enter the congregation. My point was that, because the child comes from a background where the father has had a child out of a marriage, then the behavior and sins will be repeated by the children. Just like in today’s society where we know that if someone’s relative is an alcoholic then they are more likely to be an alcoholic. Also, let’s see what the word “bastard” meant to the Israelites in that time period. A "bastard" in the Old Testament means a child born of an Israelite father and a heathen [non-Israelite] mother. This also lets us know that the Israelites did not want foreign religions to be mixed in with Judaism, so it would only make sense to make precautions to make sure that this would not occur. This is not a contradiction. Sources: . http://www.biblegateway.com... . http://www.biblestudy.org...\ . http://www.biblegateway.com... I wish good luck to my opponent in his next round!