I am willing to accept the argument that one shouldn't trust the bible as it has been changed so many times. There are many inconsistencies in the bible, but what if we had the original bible? What if we had access to the original texts, would we still need the Qur'an? I mean Why debate when all we need to do is go to the source of the text.
I assume that by the Bible you are referring to both of what are known today as the Old and New Testaments; in Islamic parlance these correspond to the Taurah and Injil respectively. According to the Qur'an, the Injil was meant to be a supplement to the Taurah, both confirming it and making lawful some of what the Torah had forbidden.
The Qur'an however abrogates the law of both the Taurah and Injil. In addition, while both the earlier revelations were meant for a particular people (the children of Israel) during a particular time period (between Moses (pbuh) and Muhammad (pbuh)), the Qur'an is the final revelation of God to all of mankind until the end of time. While the theology of all revelations (in their original form) is identical, as it must be to originate from the same source, the ritual laws differ.
Muslims believe that if we had the original forms of both the Taurah and Injil, they would in fact confirm the coming of a Messenger among the unlettered who would be the final Prophet, along with a number of unmistakable characteristics. Some of these descriptions survive in contemporary versions of the Bible. To answer your question, the original texts would directly imply that the Qur'an is the word of God applicable today.
In Islam we learn about the Original Bible and the corruption that happened to it by some of the Jewish and not good followers during the ages.
in the Original Bible and all previews religions a confirmation that Muhammad the Messenger of Islam will come and a specific Sign will lead the world to him. but after he came they refuses to follow him and hides the remaining of bible that talks about Islam and each christian have to declare to islam. Surah Assaf Explanation of Surah Assaf Conversation about this matter
When you look at the both The Bible and the Quran they are both supplements of the Torah and Veda the only difference between them is the names of the writers of the Verses in the original version of the Quran they were calling Jesus as the Anointing One and in the new version they call Jesus the Prophet of all mankind
The nature of this question is very deceptively used by missionaries. They translate Injeel as the Bible which of course is a lie.
Quran 57:27 "....... We sent after them Jesus the son of Mary, and bestowed on him the Injeel......"
- Thus Injeel refers only to original gospel revealed to Jesus. Note: No word Bible is mentioned contrary to exact word Torah being used
- Bible is collection of Old testament (Christian translation of Torah and not actual Torah, has very key differences in meanings), 4 canonical Gospels, Epistles like Hebrews, Revelation, Corinthians etc which are not Gospels and Acts of the Apostles again not Gospel or word of God.
- So INJEEL is NOT BIBLE .
- Unlike synoptic gospels, Gospels of John was written very late. The most earliest prediction is around (90-130 AD) . By analysis we can understand that if it was indeed John the Apostle, he would have been easily around 90-100 year old when writing it. Saying that he is the author is doubtful or that words of such an old man are accurate is also doubtful.
- Coming to the synoptic Gospels, we definitely know that these gospels are NARRATIONS of life and lesson of Jesus. NOT exact WORDS bestowed on Jesus.
For instance, (Matthew 2:11) And going into the house they saw the child with Mary his mother, and they fell down and worshiped him. Then, opening their treasures, they offered him gifts, gold and frankincense and myrrh. (Matthew 2:2) Saying, “Where is he who has been born king of the Jews? For we saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him.”
Clearly these are narrations or words of general public and NOT WORDS OF JESUS. So no way canonical Gospels can be treated as holy words.
It is very likely possible that FEW verses from Injeel have been quoted in canonical Gospels through oral traditions meaning that the canonical Gospels do partly have actual verses from Injeel (Original Gospel) along with misinterpreted verses and the narration. There were many Jewish-Christian sects which rejected the canonical Gospels and Bible altogether and carried their own Gospels like Ebionites, Nazarenes which could have had carried not entirely but more such actual verses from Injeel.
No wonder even now that there are Unitarian Christians who are able to find proof from these Gospels to say that Jesus was human Messiah and not Son of God thus rejecting Trinity. But of course due to the basic nature of canonical gospel as being written by followers rather then Jesus there are still many errors which even the Unitarians accept despite rejecting Trinity.
Many NT scholars doubt that the John may not be Apostle John instead some other person named John, in fact some theories suggest that Gospel of John was collected from multiple different Johns and was penned down into a single Gospel.