Which one is more logically flawed -- the Quran or the Bible?

Question

Don't say "both". Tip the scales, and pick one.

Anthony L: You're joking, right?

Answer 1

The Koran is based on the bible. The prophet Mohamed was in close contact with both Christians and Jews and therefor repeated a lot of what he learned from them.
Since the Koran is a copy of the original I would say your better off with the bible.
EDIT 1
"christians were outside the arab pensula , while the jews where in the madina and they weren't in contact with arabs , and the prophet didn't go to the madina except after 13 years of his revelation as a prophet, SO No way to what u say , and to ur knowledge too he was illiterate !!"

We'll I got this information from history books.Also you can say what you want but the fact so many similar statements are found between the two books and the fact the Koran mentions plenty of biblical characters proves what I'm saying.
I admit the bible has some alterations that don't effect the message but your not willing to admit anything. The Koran was passed by memory at first since Mohamed couldn't write which makes the flaws more likely. Secondly he didn't have to read to talk with Jews and Christians.
EDIT2
"Joel-You do know that the Bible is a collection of collected texts, most of which were influenced by past religious teachings and traditions heavily, mainly Pagan"
The current religions were heavily influenced by pagan beliefs and then they made certain alterations to the bible to match these beliefs. However with the discovery of thousands of ancient manuscripts these changes have been recognized and in some cases removed.
A lot of modern bibles will point out the changes in there foot notes.

EDIT3
MuslmRose
Instead of commenting on all you posted herer's some info. BTW your site can't be considered objective. It's an Islamic site and for it to be considered objective it has to be neutral and secular like the article I quote from.

"Christoph Luxenberg, a scholar of ancient Semitic languages in Germany, argues that the Koran has been misread and mistranslated for centuries. KoranHis work, based on the earliest copies of the Koran, maintains that parts of Islam's holy book are derived from pre-existing Christian Aramaic texts that were misinterpreted by later Islamic scholars who prepared the editions of the Koran commonly read today."

"The reverberations have affected non-Muslim scholars in Western countries. "Between fear and political correctness, it's not possible to say anything other than sugary nonsense about Islam," said one scholar at an American university who asked not to be named, referring to the threatened violence as well as the widespread reluctance on United States college campuses to criticize other cultures"

"Mr. Wansbrough insisted that the text of the Koran appeared to be a composite of different voices or texts compiled over dozens if not hundreds of years. After all, scholars agree that there is no evidence of the Koran until 691 — 59 years after Muhammad's death — when the Dome of the Rock mosque in Jerusalem was built, carrying several Koranic inscriptions."

"These inscriptions differ to some degree from the version of the Koran that has been handed down through the centuries, suggesting, scholars say, that the Koran may have still been evolving in the last decade of the seventh century. Moreover, much of what we know as Islam — the lives and sayings of the Prophet — is based on texts from between 130 and 300 years after Muhammad's death."

"I think there is increasing acceptance, even on the part of many Muslims, that Islam emerged out of the wider monotheistic soup of the Middle East," says Roy Mottahedeh, a professor of Islamic history at Harvard University.

"Mr. Luxenberg's radical theory is that many of the text's difficulties can be clarified when it is seen as closely related to Aramaic, the language group of most Middle Eastern Jews and Christians at the time."

"A return to the earliest Koran, Mr. Puin and others suggest, might lead to a more tolerant brand of Islam, as well as one that is more conscious of its close ties to both Judaism and Christianity."

Answer 2

Anthony L, the first person to answer the question. You retard!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! There's two ways to spell Qu'ran. I learned that in the seventh grade. Now anyways, c'mon man, ur asking this question in a predominantly Christian country, where the only image of Islam we recieve in the media is the small percentage of them who have distorted the teachings of their religion, which is somewhat similar to Christianity and Judaism. But being a Christian, of course I'll say that the Koran is more flawed. Notice that I used both spellings Anthony L you retard.

Answer 3

I've studied both heavily. The Bible contradicts itself and worldly knowledge much more than the Quran. They both are pretty illogical to any critically thinking person.

Joel-You do know that the Bible is a collection of collected texts, most of which were influenced by past religious teachings and traditions heavily, mainly Pagan.

Answer 4

Neither - that's rather like asking which makes the best baseball, an orange or an apple. Neither are supposed to be baseballs - and neither the Qu'uran or the Bible are supposed to be logical theses.

Neither is logically structured - and neither is flawed. (On analysis, of course, this turns out to be one of those Have you stopped beating your wife questions.)

Answer 5

The Quran was scientificlly challenged to be the Genuine book

Answer 6

Hmm.. I could have had my very own religion if my tribe have invented their own writing. Instead, my ancestors abandoned their beliefs and accepted western and middle east's religions.. And, here we are talking about the Quran and the Bible.

Answer 7

the Quran has no flaws, it is the true word of God that hasn't been changed since it was sent down more than 1400 years ago!!the Quran is all logic and all wisedom and is valide for all times!!

edit:to that guy above , christians were outside the arab pensula , while the jews where in the madina and they weren't in contact with arabs , and the prophet didn't go to the madina except after 13 years of his revelation as a prophet, SO No way to what u say , and to ur knowledge too he was illiterate !!!

edit:
at that time, Christianity was almost totally out of the scene of Makkah. In the Arab Peninsula, Christian presence was confined to three locations: among the tribes of Al-Heerah in the northeast near Iraq, the Roman-occupied kingdom of Bani Ghassan in the northwest, and the Abyssinian reign of Yemen, far away from Makkah. Jewish presence was mainly in enclave settlements in and around Madinah.

Makkah being devoid of any real source of Biblical information, the pagans of the time could find no better candidate than a non-Arab Roman blacksmith boy earning his living there. They claimed that he was the source of the Qur’an, dictating it to Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) out of his meagre Biblical education! The mockingly fabricated fallacy soon faded away among the pagans themselves. Years later, in the peak of the fierce hostilities of the Jewish tribes of Al-Madinah, and amidst their repeated attempts to defame the Prophet, spread rumors and work out plots to eradicate Islam, no such claim (i.e., that the Qur’an copied the Bible) was ever raised.

On the contrary, the Jews were keeping their scriptures away from the Muslims, specially those prophesizing and supporting the new message. It is also significant that there was no single Arabic translation of the Bible till the tenth century CE, i.e., three centuries after the Prophet’s death. The available texts of the Bible were either in Syrian, Greek, or Hebrew. If the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) could have any direct access to the Jewish or Christian scriptures, he would have quoted them, being in dire need to challenge his opponents.

The only other reported encounters of the Prophet with Christian sources were on two occasions. At the early age of twelve, during a trip with his uncle Abu Talib among a trade caravan to Ash-Sham, they casually met Baheerah, a Syrian monk who reportedly could identify in the boy Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) signs of expected prophethood foretold in the old scriptures.

Similarly, when the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) received the first few verses of the revelation, his worried wife Khadijah brought him to her relative Waraqah ibn Nawfal. Being a Christian convert with some knowledge of the Hebrew scriptures, he assured the Prophet that the revelation he received was genuinely divine. Waraqah passed away shortly thereafter; the revelation continued for 23 years.

Now let us examine the two texts, the Qur’an and the Bible. The Qur’an was revealed over 23 years in installments to match multitudes of events, issues, and queries, which were finally compiled into surahs, each having a homogeneous flowing narration. On the other hand, the Bible is a collection of 58 (plus 16 disputed) books written by several human authors and groups. These books were originally not intended to be holy scriptures, but were selectively made so by the ecumenical councils of the Church, several centuries after Christ.

An academic or even casual hand-on examination by an impartial sound intellect could never fail to witness the deep contrast between the superb text and context of the Qur’an, compared to the fallible human texts comprising the Bible books

contradictions in the bible:
http://www.islam-guide.com/cgi-bin/goto.cgi?http://www.islaminfo.com/articleview.asp?level=6&catID=1
.

Answer 8

oh come on---they can't even agree on how to spell the Koran or Quran or whatever. At least everyone agrees on how to spell the Bible.

Answer 9

The Bible. The Quran is more internally consistent.

Answer 10

Sorry neither are close to perfect but I think the muslims have added more flaws in their copy.