Hi, perhaps you could explain further? The issue as a whole is not simple but a part of it is and that is that we either submit to the Bible as an authority greater than us that does require interpretation or we decide that parts of it are wrong and in so doing impose our own morality on the Bible.

Enns unfortunately takes the latter view. As soon as you allow for the possibility that parts of the Bible are completely wrong (rather than simply misinterpreted) then the Bible simply becomes a way of backing up your personal morality. If you disagree with the Bible then its wrong rather than you.