Bart Ehrman was a textual critic. A professional. I don't care to even speak my beliefs, I just want to say that another professional textual critic who disagrees with him is Dan Wallace. You can find and watch their debates for free. Don't listen to an ignorant defense of Ehrman watch 2 well informed professionals debate. I don't know what I believe anymore but the New Testament books are the most grounded historical records of the ancient world (some of them), as far as accurate transmission of the text goes. And this argument would even be backed by an atheist. It's like Bill Mahr's movie Religulous, come on Bill are you serious with the people you chose to argue with, hicks in a mobile church? Argue a scholar man.

I watched atheist and theists debate for years. Most of the time I thought the atheist got the 'Best of it' (poker phrase). Then it occurred to me the theist is always at a huge disadvantage and it's amazing they can even hold their own. Because it's so much harder to defend a positive case (let alone one so old) then it is to relentlessly attack one. But as for 'Rewriting the bible?' No. When? We have copies from the 1500AD, same. 1000AD, same. 500AD, same. 250AD, same. Fragments before that date match up in the few cases that we have them. The Jews are METICULOUS at text transmission. Our earliest copy of Isaiah before the Dead Sea Scrolls was 900AD. They found in the scrolls a copy from 200BC, guess what, same lol. I mean give credit where credit is due.

The 2 arguments always contradict themselves also. I always hear 2 arguments come from the same person; #1- New Testament is full of contradictions and mistakes, #2- They constantly edited the text lol. Which one is it? You can't have both arguments they cancel each other out