Follow what?Follow along...
I didn't point out your literary offense just to be onery. It reveals the way you think. Your flipping back and forth from metaphorical to literal meanings of "venom"* in the same context simply to defend and deny your redundancy is the same inconsistency you employ in your hermeneutics, and why logical, Scriptural arguments are wasted on you.I have never seen a snake bite someone and leave hate...so no, it is not redundant to say "hate filled venom". Your venom (not a snakes) is hate.
*Your use of "venom" was metaphorical. Men don't possess literal venom. It was a metaphor for hate. A rational thinker could take it no other way. So saying a man spreads his "hate filled venom" was redundant. But how do you attempt to rebut the argument? By employing a literal meaning which was completely irrelevant to the discussion!