This was a grave disappointment. Rather than actually countering any of Ehrman's arguements, Jones simple restate a fundamentalist point of view and claims it is true because he has faith that it is true. That ain't how it works, buddy.

Faith is NOT a rational path to truth. ( )

Very easy to read rebuttal of Ehrman's book. In fact, it's an easy rebuttal. I'd be embarrassed if I were Ehrman. ( )

This book attempts to reconcile many of the principles of Christian faith with the historical evidence regarding how the current version of the Bible came to be, particularly in regards to data presented by Bart Ehrman in his numerous books. Generally speaking, the effort put forth by the author is commendable as he attempts to acknowledge the importance of Ehrman's work while suggesting alternative conclusions to those attained by Ehrman. The problem with this book is that when refuting Ehrman's claims, this book seems to take a number of things for granted which ultimately should be questioned. An example is that this author takes for granted his predetermined conclusion that Jesus is God, and was resurrected from the dead, creating a form of circular argument in support of his conclusions. Another example is that he takes for granted that early christians were not steeped in a culture of pagan mythology and ritual, and the stories that they orally passed down were actually intended to be understood as literal history. The author makes statements regarding the 'truth' of his conclusions, which on the surface seem to be logical, but there's a reason why serious biblical scholars generally derive conclusions more closely aligned with Ehrman's, it's because they attempt to take an objective standpoint and deny themselves the luxury of the type of assumptions that form the foundation of Jones' arguments.

Another problem with this book was how the author attempted to inject humour into his narrative, making it feel like any other popularized christian book, and not a serious study of the biblical texts and history. Perhaps the reason is that the target audience is primarily believers whose faith is easily shaken by the suggestion that perhaps the Bible wasn't divinely handed to humanity in it's final form. For these people the logical arguments made by the author may be comforting, and the assumptions dismissable. ( )

"What good does it do to say that the words [of the Bible] are inspired by God if most people have absolutely no access to these words, but only to more or less clumsy renderings of these words into a language? . . . How does it help us to say that the Bible is the inerrant word of God if in fact we don't have the words that God inerrantly inspired? . . . We have only error-ridden copies, and the vast majority of these are centuries removed from the originals." So contends Bart D. Ehrman in his bestselling Misquoting Jesus. If altogether true, we have little reason to put our confidence in Scripture. Add to this Ehrman's contention that what we read in the New Testament represents the winners' version of events, twisted to suit their own purposes and not at all a faithful recounting of what really happened, and the case for skepticism and unbelief gives every appearance of being on solid footing. But are things really so bad off? Were the New Testament documents widely distorted by copyists? Can we in fact have no idea what was in the originals? Do we have no hope of knowing what eyewitnesses said and thought? Are other documents left out of the New Testament better sources for understanding early Christianity? While readily conceding that Ehrman has many of his facts straight, pastor and researcher Timothy Paul Jones argues that Ehrman is far too quick to jump to false and unnecessary conclusions. In clear, straightforward prose, Jones explores and explains the ins and outs of copying the New Testament, why lost Christianities were lost, and why the Christian message still rings true today.