I’m sure you have a valid point, though I have no idea what it is. I strongly urge you to call in !!!!! They (meaning whomever is on the radio tomorrow morning) would love to hear from you!

Even after Ehrman rejected inerrancy, he continued as a Christian practicing textual criticism and knowing about all those manuscript errors for years – just like Christian text critics have known about those errors since at least 1502 when work on the Complutensian Polyglot began, which included the first printed edition of the Greek New Testament.

For a science blog, you guys sure get your facts wrong…

In his latest book “Jesus, Interrupted” he talks about his being agnostic and it has to do with the suffering in that exists in the world.

Who cares whether this particular sentence of a work of fiction is correct or not?

It’s not fiction, it’s religious writing. Ehrman is a biblical scholar, which means he studies the Bible as a work of literature, subject to the same issues and methods as, e.g. Homer. “Correct” in this vein means that what we see (in some Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic text) is what the “author” actually wrote. Of course, “author” is, itself, a complex term: When we’re looking at a piece of Q in Luke, or a piece of one of the “we” sections in Acts, do we mean “Luke”, whoever wrote that book, using excerpts from earlier authors, or do we mean the earlier authors themselves?

Considering the influence these books have had on human civilization (and bid fair to have for the foreseeable future), biblical studies are a perfectly valid field of sociological research. Indeed, it’s all for the best the more agnostics get involved in the research, rather than leaving it to people with a “Truth” agenda.