In your opening paragraph you state,

"Since he [Ehrman] learned the historical critical method in place of the devotional method, he discovered the Bible was full of contradictions and discrepancies"

although it is well known that Ehrman began as a fundamentalist, not a scholar. By making this statement you imply that Ehrman's examination of biblical texts is flawed from the beginning as if a scholarly background is not adequate to study ancient texts while a christian heart is. This is a synonymous with saying that one must be a criminal to study criminology or have a pathologically diseased body to study pathology. i doubt that you or anyone would make such a ridiculous argument.

Your review adds little more from this point - exactly the weakness you project onto Ehrman.