Bart Ehrman is not the most conservative scholar. He's also been known by peers to have two faces, depending on who he's dealing with, whether his audience is academic or pop.
Bruce Metzger is a far more reliable (and recognized) guide, regardless of religious inclination. At worst, you will have a more balanced perspective after reading Metzger, and at best you will see where Ehrman has let you down.
"Over 100s of years and many errors" is pseudo-science. It makes for a Dan Brown novel for the uninitiated, but it doesn't fit the facts. Few mainstream scholars today would deny the accuracy of the New Testament documents, nor their 1st century authorship and dating.
I'll check him out. Im not sure what your definition of mainstream scholars is but most evangelical christians i speak with in the US don't doubt the accuracy - and they compose a large group of people.
Fantastic. Would be great to hear how you find him.
"most evangelical christians [...] don't doubt the accuracy"
By "mainstream scholars" I don't necessarily mean evangelical Christians, just non-fringe ancient historians or textual critics.
In this respect, Ehrman himself is interesting, because he's not actually the most extreme liberal, and you can find Ehrman himself correcting the fringe scholars when he wants to. When Ehrman is writing for the masses, however, you almost want to say to him "you should know better". After all, he had the privilege of sitting under Metzger.
Bruce Metzger is a far more reliable (and recognized) guide, regardless of religious inclination. At worst, you will have a more balanced perspective after reading Metzger, and at best you will see where Ehrman has let you down.
"Over 100s of years and many errors" is pseudo-science. It makes for a Dan Brown novel for the uninitiated, but it doesn't fit the facts. Few mainstream scholars today would deny the accuracy of the New Testament documents, nor their 1st century authorship and dating.