You are correct "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof for correction for instruction in righteousness. I do know how to reconcile scripture, you don't! You demonstrate this by making the words of Paul supersede the very words of Jesus. As I said, if there is a seeming, i.e. not actual, discrepancy between the words of Jesus, and the words of any other writer in the Bible it absolutely must be resolved in favor of Jesus. Your interpretation does not do this. Ergo you do not know how to reconcile scripture. Instead you force scripture to support your assumptions/presuppositions and ignore the word of Jesus.
I have two editions of Bauer, Danker, Arndt, Gingrich Greek lexicon in my "library" a print edition I bought for seminary about 3 decades ago and an electronic edition I purchased within the past 2 years. How many lexicons do you own?
Oh, I think I have about 6 different lexicons (including two to three Greek grammar ones), 4 different concordances, a total of four different interlinear Bibles and this does not include the on-line resources I use too. I have probably at least a dozen on-line resources; and than there's the historical / archeology / cultural resources I use.
So if you want to get into a "Bible resource pizzing contest" - I'd probably win!
Now what does it mean to "reconcile Scripture". If God is the final author of everything in the Bible how does John 3:16 reconcile with Romans 9:13?
Your presupposition is that because John 3:16 says "For God so loved the world..." you conclude that means God loves every single human being ever born; yet you can't reconcile that belief to the passages that say God hated Esau.
So your version of reconciling is to say: "Well what Jesus said has more weight than what Paul (or Malachi) said." Which looses sight of the fact that Paul and Malachi wrote by inspiration of the Holy Spirit which are actually also the words of Christ!
So Jesus said "God so loved the world" and Jesus also said "Jacob have I loved and Esau have I hated" and you are obviously at a loss of how to reconcile those two statements.
So let's take a look at John 3:16 for a minute. "For God so loved the world.." The word "world" there is actually the word "cosmos". It's not the word "inhabitant" as is seen in "A decree went out from Augustus Caesar that all the world be taxed". The word "world" there is not the word "cosmos". Obviously Caesar didn't tax the people in the Americas, or China.
Now the Holy Spirit could have inspired John to write "For God so loved the inhabitance...." But that isn't what that passages says. The Greek word used there is the word "cosmos". So what does it mean that "God so loved the cosmos..."?
Well, we get one answer to that in that the creation is part of the redemption plan. "The creation groans and travails...." Romans 8:22
So, let's move onto a "practical" question related to 'the love of God". If God loves someone who ends up in the Lake of Fire; what measure of quality of love is that?
Next question: If Jesus paid for someone's sin and they end up in the Lake of Fire to pay for their own sin; we got some major theological issues!
1. Christ's atonement was insufficient.
2. At least in relation to those who end up in the Lake of Fire; Christ died in vain.
3. Jesus is a liar because he says "All that the Father gives me will come and I will loose nothing, but will raise (it / him) up on the last day." John 6:39, John 6:40, John 6:44
4. If Jesus paid for someone's sin and they pay for their own sin; that's two people paying for the sin of one and even in human courts - that's not justice!
So now; how to reconcile these passages? Other than to conclude that Christ did not atone for every single human being that ever lived.
Now on to Romans 9:13 what does "hated" in "Esau have I hated" mean?
I've heard some people argue: "it means love less". Which again would bring us back to the question of what is the quality of the measure of "love" that's "less"? If "love less" means condemnation than.... what kind of love is that? I love my kid; but I let him go play in the traffic on the freeway! (Yeah... that kind of love would have CPS taking my kid away from me!)
So "hated" there in the Greek does not mean "love less". It actually means "to have no regard for". We often think of "hate" as something that expends emotional energy. But if someone has come to the point of "having no regard" for someone else; they just "don't care" what happens to them. In human terms we call that apathy.
Now obviously we also know "God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked". (Ezekiel 33:11) But God is not troubled by His own Divine prerogative to determine who He will redeem and who He doesn't. Humanity struggles with God's choices because it doesn't "seem fair" to us. Yet, if we got what was "fair" we'd all be in the Lake of Fire. This is why it's His MERCY that He saves some! (Not His obligation.)
Now if you are an adherent to arminian doctrine that believes whether or not God chose you, is determined on you "accepting" / "choosing" or some exercise of your human will that "allows" God to redeem you. You have now made your redemption God's obligation. Then it's a works gospel because it's dependent on something you did.
Jesus aint up in heaven wringing His hands waiting for any of us to "accept" Him!
God is the proverbial gorilla in the cosmic living room. He does what He wants!