Bart Ehrman

How misused: Ehrman claims Matthew 1:23 misquotes and mistranslates Isaiah 7:14 by using 'virgin' instead of 'young woman,' suggesting 'almah' only means young woman and Matthew misunderstands Hebrew (videos 26, 26, 376, 437, 669).

Scripture's answer: The Hebrew word 'almah' has a semantic range that can imply virginity, and the Septuagint's (LXX) translation as 'parthenos' (virgin) was a valid interpretive choice. Matthew's use is an inspired fulfillment, not a mistranslation. The original context of Isaiah, a miraculous sign for Ahaz, lends itself naturally to a miraculous birth interpretation, which is fulfilled uniquely in Christ.

How misused: Ehrman frequently claims Luke omits or removes Mark 10:45 ('ransom for many') to demonstrate Luke's supposed rejection of substitutionary atonement (videos 9, 81, 311, 485).

Scripture's answer: Luke's Gospel consistently attests to the atoning work of Christ. Passages like Luke 22:19-20 (institution of the Lord's Supper) and various accounts in Acts (Luke's sequel, e.g., Acts 20:28) clearly present Jesus' death as redemptive and sacrificial for the forgiveness of sins. Luke's omission of one verse from Mark does not negate his broader theological framework.

How misused: Walsh/Ehrman minimize Paul's condemnation of homosexuality in Romans 1 by claiming it's merely a 'stereotype' of Gentile passion or an indicator of Paul's general 'anti-sex' asceticism due to imminent eschatology (video 99).

Scripture's answer: Romans 1:26-27 explicitly identifies same-sex acts as 'unnatural' and 'degrading passions' resulting from idolatry, a rejection of God as Creator. Paul's theology is rooted in creational order, not merely Stoic philosophy or asceticism, and extends beyond general warnings about passion to specific moral judgments. His views on marriage and procreation are clear elsewhere (1 Cor 7).

How misused: Ehrman claims this passage was 'almost certainly not originally there' and is a later scribal addition that fundamentally alters the Gospel of John (videos 153, 443, 566, 482).

Scripture's answer: While prominent in textual debates, significant patristic evidence suggests early knowledge of the story. Its inclusion in many early manuscripts, though not the earliest, and its theological consistency with Jesus' character, indicates its widespread acceptance and the likelihood of its authentic origin, even if its manuscript transmission was complex. Textual criticism allows for its reconstruction as part of the broader tradition.

How misused: Ehrman frequently asserts this passage, commanding women to be silent, is an interpolation or misplacement, denying its Pauline authorship to align with an 'egalitarian' Paul (videos 2, 143).

Scripture's answer: There is strong manuscript support for the passage's inclusion. Its interpretation is nuanced, often understood as specific instruction for disruptive behavior in Corinthian worship rather than a universal prohibition against all female speech. Paul affirms women's roles in prophecy and prayer (1 Cor 11), indicating a complementary, not contradictory, gender dynamic.

How misused: Ehrman dismisses this verse as a fraudulent interpolation to argue the New Testament does not teach the Trinity (videos 482, 559, 570).

Scripture's answer: The Comma Johanneum is indeed a later scribal addition, not part of the original text. However, this textual variant does not negate the doctrine of the Trinity. The Trinity is a systematic theological articulation derived from cumulative biblical evidence throughout the New Testament (e.g., Matthew 28:19, 2 Corinthians 13:14, deity claims for Jesus in John, deity of the Holy Spirit in Acts/Pauline epistles), not solely dependent on a single disputed verse.

How misused: Walsh claims Matthew's account of Jesus riding two animals (donkey and colt) simultaneously reveals historical fabrication to fulfill prophecy (video 60).

Scripture's answer: This is a misreading of the Greek. 'Them' (referring to the animals) is likely the cloaks, or it describes Jesus putting his cloaks on both animals for a processional ride, or the colt and its mother. It's a common example of selective hyper-literalism that ignores linguistic and cultural nuance to create a 'contradiction.'

How misused: Ehrman claims Mark makes a historical error by stating Abiathar was high priest when David ate the showbread, when it was Ahimelech (videos 173, 262, 503).

Scripture's answer: This is often understood as a literary device (synecdoche) where the son (Abiathar) is mentioned as associated with a significant event of his father's (Ahimelech's) high priesthood. Abiathar later became high priest and was a prominent figure in David's life, making the reference understandable within ancient literary conventions. Alternatively, Ahimelech might have had a longer name including Abiathar, or Abiathar could have been a co-high priest. These are not 'errors' in the modern sense but nuances of ancient reporting.