Verified answer

The Holy Bible has been changed (it has somewhere around 2,900 different versions of it) to suit the priests (who in their quest of spreading Christanity have accepted the local customs, too! For ex: Valentine's Day, Santa Claus etc.)

On the other hand, the Holy Koran, Islam's Holy Book, has only one edition, the original one, and which is followed by close to 1.5 billion Muslims around the world.

Islam did not adopt any of the local customs in its 'spread'.

Now, you can make out whether the holy Koran can align (vs) itself with the Bible or not.

Poles apart I'm afraid. The Holy Qu'ran, criticises the Holy Bible as we have it, because of the very big differences between them.

One of the ways this is done is to say that the Bible as we have it has been corrupted over the centuries between the founding of Christianity and the founding of Islam. And they use liberal Christian teachers to support this claim.

However, there is excellent, rock solid evidence that the text that we have is extremely accurate, and goes right back to the first century and to Christ and His Apostles.

There is a discipline in the Christian Church called Textual Criticism. The scholars who labour in this field work at examining all the old manuscripts, of which there are thousands, and use rules developed to decide on the best text if there is a difference.

This should not be taken as an excuse to say this means you cannot trust the Bible. Rather it is the other way around. After such painstaking work we are sure of the text as we have it. Any discrepancies are minor; sometimes a letter, or a variant on a word are what has to be decided. But in no case is there any doubt as to the facts and the teaching of the Holy Bible.

The same can be said of the Hebrew Bible, The sacred Torah. Which in the Christian Bible is the Old Testament.

Jewish scholars also laboured hard and long to maintain the continuance and accuracy of the Holy Scriptures. We owe an enormous debt to the Jews for giving us God's Word in this way.

The challenge to Muslims is this, show us Christians the changes in the Holy Bible that you say were made before the writing of the Holy Qu'ran.

I think that the OT appears closer to the Quran than the NT. The NT with it's notions of begotten son of god living on earth, Trinity and it's human sacrifice involving eating and drinking of human flesh and blood makes it stand out as something quite alien to the message in the OT and the Quran, to the point where it maybe regarded as sickening and revolting by the followers of the OT and Quran. The OT insists the Creator doesnt look like his creation, but Christianity insists the Creator appeared in the form of a man (God's creation). The OT insists the messiah will be the patrilineal descendant of King David and Solomon and not Jechoniah, but Christianity insists the messiah was actually the begotten son of god not kings. Both Quran and OT forbid consuming the flesh and blood of humans, but Jesus in the NT offers it to his disciples.

So, why is there such a difference? I think recent DNA studies that suggest a large number of Jews and Muslims share recent common ancestors (semitic) may explain the similarity between their religious texts. On the other hand, the lack of recent common ancestors between Semities and Europeans might explain the distance between their religious texts.

However, take away Paul from the NT and read the Gospels as the scripture of Ebionites and Nazorean Jews and they look more compatible with the OT and not that far from the Quran. Now take away the Hadith text in Islam and the three texts, OT, Gospels and the Quran are actually quite compatible.

To Derek H: The principle change to the Bible would be like the addition of writings of people like Paul who was otherwise regarded as an imposter by the Ebionites and Nazorean Jews (Jews who believed Jesus was the messiah). Some respected Muslim scholars dont feel that there was a change in the words of the Gospel itself, just how the words are understood in the Gospels. In Arabic this is the difference between tharif e lafzi and tharif e manawi (changing the words and changing the meanings of the word). These scholars suggest that change is only in which meaning of the word is being used. A good example of this would be the use of the word son of God. Christians suggest that this word confers Divinity and refers to the begotten son of God. However, the recently discovered Dead Sea Scrolls suggest that the Jews had a different meaning for it, a righteous mortal being.

It's an entirely different text. For muslims, the qu'ran was written after the bible (and of course after the torah -aka old testament), and it was written as the actual word of god. Like...the 3rd book in the bunch, last chapter in a whole book of western religion. so muslims believe that jesus was a prophet, like moses and like mohammad (only mohammad happend to be the last one)...and therefore all the books are pretty special because all the main characters are regarded as holy.

it's all interesting if youre into all that religion stuff

Having met with Jesus through a deep and very powerful encounter, I can only say that I truly believe him to be God. God is not totally knowable, and is not like a human in his triune nature. The name he has at the start of the Bible is elohim, which means, 'one, but more than one.' God declared himself to be this. There are thousands of scriptures around, dating back to very soon after Jesus' death, relative to how many years passed before the Quran was written down, and then not from the original. Every scripture ever found agrees with the Bible we have today, and no copies of any Bible containing a different version of events have ever been found. Even allah says that you should listen to the people of the book. Allah does not say in the Quran that the Bible has been altered. Hope you continue to be at peace.

The Qu'ran is lot shorter book then the Bible so it dose not retell the whole bible only a few stories and a lot of rules.

Extremely different. They are no where the same or similar unless you really have poor reading comprehension.

Reading the Koran to me was akin to reading the Book of Mormon, which is in no way similar to either, it's just not the Bible at all. I haven't read all of them, but I read enough to get a feel of what kinds of things they were saying.

The Bible I read all of, and it stands alone as what it is.

They are not close at all.

The West does not have rich industrialists inserting bracketed remarks in the Bible like: Muslim, tanks, planes and artillery.

Whereas the rich Arabs spend millions of dollars of oil revenue on producing copies of the Qur'an with inserted brackets containing words like: Jew; Christian; planes; tanks and artillery.

A big difference.

Now you work out what kind of effect those sort of 'bracketed' remarks have.

Why should you wonder? Quran was narrated after 600 years of even New Testaments were written. You can also come up with another version of bible with some changes and start a new religion. But remember that, no one can reach to God except through Jesus. I can underline that.

read the challenge from illiterate prophet

(87) Say: If men and jinn should combine together to bring the like of this Quran, they could not bring the like of it, though some of them were aiders of others. (88) And certainly We have explained for men in this Quran every kind of similitude, but most men do not consent to aught but denying. (89)