I think Ehrman and others like him will not have an impact in the scholarly world until they are able to present their case by explaining the WHOLE Bible. Concentrating on contradictions and errors is fine, but unless you are able to explain them in light of the other portions of the Bible that show evidence of supernatural involvement (fulfilled prophecy, for example), you really have not done anything but shown that there are contradictions and errors in the COPIES, and that humans were involved in the process, which basically guarantees errors. I agree with Ehrman; there are errors in the Bible, but so what. 2 Sam 21.19 is a certifiable error with no manuscript resolution. But I have to accept the other portions of the Bible and explain fulfilled prophecies. And in a more larger context, I am simply unable to accept the worldview that this universe popped into existence out of nothing; to do so would require me to abandon rational thought. In my humble opinion, I think Ehrman is bitter toward God (for who knows what reason) and he does not, deep in his soul, really believe the conclusions he is presenting. He is just too smart for that.