This.

People read the bible believing it is a factual account.  It isn't.  The Great Flood, for example, didn't happen.  It's a story that is common in the middle-eastern region and has its origins in Mesopotamia long before even biblical scholars can attribute it to happening in the biblical time-line.

There are historical facts in the bible, but the bible isn't a true historical document.

He might as well have. After all, he does have a PhD in History of Religions, you know.

Edit: Also, Aslan is a cool name. I feel like I heard it from somewhere before, though...

New Testament is a bit different, though. There are 20,000 manuscripts that have been found and utilized to make up what we read today. Between the 20,000 source manuscripts, there is almost no variance between them, aside from translation differences between the languages they are written in. They all say the same thing about Jesus, and the writings thereafter by Paul, Peter, and the writers of the Gospels.

I think you'd be hard pressed to find any document from antiquity that is even close to that kind of relaibility - even the works of the historical scholars that make up our understanding of the ancient world. Even then, the 3rd party, non-religious accounts of Christianity agree with what the NT says, where the statements are available.

Having said that, a book writen by a Muslim on Christ is going to be heavily biased against Christ's claims. Much in the same way if a Christian wrote about Mohammed.

New Testament is a bit different, though. There are 20,000 manuscripts that have been found and utilized to make up what we read today. Between the 20,000 source manuscripts, there is almost no variance between them, aside from translation differences between the languages they are written in. They all say the same thing about Jesus, and the writings thereafter by Paul, Peter, and the writers of the Gospels.

I think you'd be hard pressed to find any document from antiquity that is even close to that kind of relaibility - even the works of the historical scholars that make up our understanding of the ancient world. Even then, the 3rd party, non-religious accounts of Christianity agree with what the NT says, where the statements are available.

Having said that, a book writen by a Muslim on Christ is going to be heavily biased against Christ's claims. Much in the same way if a Christian wrote about Mohammed.

The fact that you are lumping the bible in one big catch-phrase goes to show how much you know about it.

The book is written by various authors, in many different languages under various litterary types. The gospel accounts themselves are of varying degrees of historical method.

It just goes to show that, no matter what information you present, the bible will always be seen as material that must prove itself, when it really proves itself. I mean, even if the flood were untrue (which I seriously doubt), the gospels hold each other up together very well even historically speaking.

A PhD is meaningless honestly.It doesnt make him 100% correct.

He never claims to be 100% correct.

A degree means you learned the facts,it doesnt mean your opinion is valid.

 A lot of the things argued here are not opinions, but actually highly documented history. 

I know people with scientific degrees that say some really stupid things.

  Which is exactly why you see those scholars making stupid criticisms to his book.

Our scholars also lack a complete history of the world to fully know the history of religion.

And if you paid any attention to what he says,  he says that it is debatable. 

 We know of religious stories that date back 15k years. I doubt his knowledge or anyone else today or any library in the world contains everything about every religion because we just dont have the information.

Once again, never makes that claim.

Not that i have any issue with him writting a book as long as his religion didnt get in the way of reporting the facts,but a degree does not mean you instantly win any argument and to suggest that anyone with a degree knows what they are talking about shows a serious lack of understanding about what a degree is and how you actually get one or dont get one.  

He doesn't make that argument, he consistently talks about his PhD to prove that him being Muslim has nothing to do with what is in his book, it is the fact that he studies the topic and have a lot of background in it, so he can talk about it from a much more objective point of view than someone who simply talks from what they have personally experienced.