Not that I wish to grasp the opportunity to volunteer myself as a "Bible-believing bigot", but I'll have a go at proposing a few answers. Some of these are my own opinions, and some are theories as to the way others think, particularly the very extreme literalists. I hope these help you in your debates:
1. It is perfectly possible to commit evil without malice; otherwise we would not have provisions in law for crimes such as negligence. Irresponsibility or selfishness can give rise to evil as easily as can malice. And if you are a Christian and have devoted your life to God, to act in a way that is unloving or disrespectful towards him, or to disobey him, is also an evil, whatever your motivation.
Some people think homosexuality is an act of disobedience, and therefore evil. The logic is understandable, and for someone like that to change their mind you have to convince them that God has not outright prohibited homosexuality (there are plenty of biblical arguments). If someone is foaming at the mouth and shouting "Abomination!", however, there isn't a whole lot of logic going on in there. You need to talk to these people about humility and about resounding gongs
, but I'm afraid you may not get very far.
2. The vast majority of Christians believe in the objectivity of good and evil - evil in itself is bad, not just the love of it. But there are lots of different opinions on how evil is defined, and the Bible contains a great many rules which we do not understand the reason for and we have to be discerning. For example, murder is evil because it is unloving. End of story. But for an Israelite in Old Testament times, eating shellfish or lasagne would also have been evil, not because shellfish or lasagne themselves are inherently evil, but because God had commanded them not to, and obeying him was an act of love and faith in his goodness.
IMHO, where a lot of people get confused is in thinking that because there has been a prohibition against something at some point in Biblical history, that thing is itself evil, where in many cases it is not as simple as that - eg. homosexuality or shellfish. When it comes to biblical literalism, the prawn salad argument is very powerful. So is the Great Commandment
in Matthew 22v37, and Peter's vision
in Acts 10:9-23 - you are not impure, are you? God has made you clean.
3. Depends what you're sharing, doesn't it? Purely love? Great. A sandwich? Brilliant. Sex? Not so simple. For example, adultery is clearly wrong, because when you are married your body does not only belong to you but also to your spouse, so you are sharing something that is not yours to give away. What about casual sex? You are a free agent but it is still very complicated, because sex can harm as well as benefit, so if you are sharing something harmful then it is not loving.
A lot of Christians are speaking from a standpoint similar to a married person. They have devoted their lives, sexuality and all, to God, and so to them, to use sex in a way which he does not approve of is wrong. Again, if you want to have an intelligent conversation with someone like that you have to centre the argument around the question of whether God really does disapprove of homosexual practice or not. It's not a foregone conclusion. Check out the Bible study on truthsetsfree.net
4&5 - lol! I love your questions. The answer to the first one is that it isn't possible, and there are so many people in the world who need to be hit around the head with a rock with that carved upon it - yes, the Bible may be inerrant, but we are not, so each and every one of us
has got something wrong in our interpretation of it. However, each and every one of us also has our head up our own backside to a greater or lesser extent, so people are apt to be very blind to this fact.
The answer to the second question is "nowhere". As far as I am aware most people's belief in the Bible's inerrancy is based upon the statement in 2 Timothy 3:16
about scripture being "God-breathed". People who believe that the Bible is so easy to understand that their interpretation is bound to be correct are up a tree, IMO. In places it is very difficult to understand.
As for your last point about the note at the end of Revelation, I think that's interesting too, but I've never thought about it before so I can't give you a smart answer to that one.
King James the Sixth and First was the one who authorised the first English translation of the Bible, hence why it bears his name.. I have heard various accusations regarding its accuracy but none of them centred on the fact that his name was on the cover, so that argument probably won't get very far. I certainly don't think it is the most accurate translation in the world but you'd have to do some research as to why and in what way.
Your thought about not recognising the difference between knowing and thinking you know is a very valid one; from some people you probably will get just a regurgitation of unexamined beliefs, but there are many others out there who are bible-believing but are not dyed-in-the-wool bigots. Keep arguing - centre your arguments around truth, justice, the need for humility and the fact that God is love - and some of these people might start to really think.