The Bible contains contradictions

In a nutshell, my opponent is arguing that Jesus is drawing a comparison of importance, in other words, it is a hyperbole. However, as I pointed out, just because you love A more than B does not mean you have to hate B. Yes you don’t have to hate B; however Jesus is just saying how much more that we are required to love Him. Why is this still a contradiction if it’s clear that Jesus is using a form of hyperbole? I also have pointed out that the Greek word is the same exact thing in both contexts. 1 John is indeed stating that the church should abide in the love of Christ. However, we also see that he stated that "If you hate your brother, you have murdered him in your own heart" (paraphrased. ) Yes, this word had to be used to show the great contrast between the two loves. We see that there is a discripincy here. The Greek language was very discriptive. Furthermore, if that is to be taken as a hyperbole (exadduration) then what else is to be taken as a hyperbole? My opponent makes a good point. How do we know if any of the Bible is saying what it says, or if it’s just speaking in terms of poetry? Well it’s simple. You would just determine the context of the text, just like with any other form of literature. I have examined the context and obviously Jesus is speaking in poetic terms. In conclusion this is not a contradiction, rather it’s just Jesus using poetic devices to g His point across. New Contradiction 1: Shall we be punnished for another's sin? This is a very interesting “contradiction”. However it seems my opponent has missed a few verses to prove his point. Here are all of them pertaining to this subject. Do the sons bear the sins of the fathers or not? Exodus 20:5, Deuteronomy 5:9 and Deuteronomy 24:16; Ezekiel 18:20 Yes they do (Exodus 20:5) - "You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me," (Deuteronomy 5:9) - "You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, and on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me," (Exodus 34:6-7) - "Then the Lord passed by in front of him and proclaimed, "The Lord, the Lord God, compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in loving kindness and truth; 7who keeps loving kindness for thousands, who forgives iniquity, transgression and sin; yet He will by no means leave the guilty unpunished, visiting the iniquity of fathers on the children and on the grandchildren to the third and fourth generations. " (1 Cor. 15:22) - "For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive. " No they don't (Deuteronomy 24:16) - "Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin. " (Ezekiel 18:20) - "The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself. " Exodus 20:5 is, of course, among the Ten Commandments. The Ten Commandments are arranged in covenant form. The Suzerain-Vassal treaty pattern of the ancient near east is followed in the Ten Commandments. This arrangement included an introduction of who was making the covenant (Exodus 20:2), what the covenant maker had done (20:2), laws (20:3-17), rewards (20:6, 12), and punishments (20:5, 7). Covenantally, 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. Also, there is another aspect to these verses. In the Bible there is something called Federal Headship, which pertains to the Jewish court system. This is where if the father had owed a debt to someone, then the sons will continue to pay it off. It’s not necessarily dealing with punishments for sins, but rather the legal matters of the day. Let’s look at what Hebrews 7:7-10 says. "But without any dispute the lesser is blessed by the greater. And in this case mortal men receive tithes, but in that case one receives them, of whom it is witnessed that he lives on. And, so to speak, through Abraham even Levi, who received tithes, paid tithes, for he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him. " In the verses in Hebrews we see that Levi, who was a descendant of Abraham, paid tithes to Melchizedek while still in the loins, "seed," of his father Abraham, even though Levi was not yet alive. In other words, Abraham, the father, represented his descendants. As Abraham paid tithes, so also did Levi. Therefore, we can see the concept of Federal Headship represented in the Bible in both the Old and New Testaments. Yet, we see in the other verses a declaration of legality in dealing with people. There is no contradiction. New contradiction 2: Did Jesus know everything? Jesus was both God and man. He had two natures. He was divine and human at the same time. This teaching is known as the hypostatic union; that is, the coming-together of two natures in one person. In Heb. 2:9 that Jesus was ". . . made for a little while lower than the angels . . . " Also in Phil. 2:5-8, it says that Jesus "emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men . . . " Col. 2:9 says, "For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form. " Jesus was both God and man at the same time. As a man, Jesus cooperated with the limitations of being a man. That is why we have verses like Luke 2:52 that says "Jesus kept increasing in wisdom and stature and in favor with God and men. " Therefore, at this point in his ministry he could say He did not know the day or hour of His return. It is not a denial of His being God, but a confirmation of Him being man. Before Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection He said the Father alone knew the day and hour of His return. It wasn't until after Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection that omniscience is attributed to Jesus. As I said before, Jesus was cooperating with the limitations of being a man and completed His ministry on this earth. He was then glorified in His resurrection. Yet, He was still a man (cf. Col. 2:9; 1 Tim. 2:5). After Jesus' resurrection, He was able to appear and disappear at will. This is not the normal ability of a man. But, it is, apparently, the normal ability of a resurrected and glorified man. Jesus was different after the resurrection. There had been a change. He was still a man and yet He knew all things. 1. God knows everything 2. Jesus does not know when his return is 3. Therefore, Jesus does not know everything 4. Therefore, Jesus is not God This syllogism would be of course true, but Jesus did know everything when he achieved his omniscience. However, my opponent doesn’t seem to fully understand the nature of the trinity. Sources: . http://carm.org... . http://carm.org... I’m sorry for giving reasons as to why I should win so early in the debate, I didn’t see that part the first time I read it so It’s my bad. Well I look forward to my opponent’s response in the next round.