Did the Quran copy the Bible? - Quranic verse on Similarities in accounts between the Quran and the Bible - Surah 46:10

بِسۡمِ اللهِ الرَّحۡمٰنِ الرَّحِيۡمِ

Often times, we find our Christian/Jewish brothers telling us the Quran was copied/borrowed/plagiarised from the Bible. Meaning that certain stories/passages and ideas have been taken from the Old and New Testament.

Since the Old and New Testament precede the Quran, their claim might have some basis.

Some of the stories that are similar to the Quran that come to mind are the Story of Adam and Eve, The story of Ain and Cabel, the story of Abraham and the sacrifice, the creation of the heavens and earth in six days/periods, David and Goliath, Moses and the Exodus and many others.

But did Allah the Almighty address this thought in the Quran? In Surah 46:10, Allah mentions...

(In Various Translations)

Sahih International

Say, "Have you considered: if the Qur'an was from Allah , and you disbelieved in it while a witness from the Children of Israel has testified to something similar and believed while you were arrogant... ?" Indeed, Allah does not guide the wrongdoing people.

Muhsin Khan

Say: "Tell me! If this (Quran) is from Allah, and you deny it, and a witness from among the Children of Israel ('Abdullah bin Salam) testifies that this Quran is from Allah [like the Taurat (Torah)], so he believed (embraced Islam) while you are too proud (to believe)." Verily! Allah guides not the people who are Zalimun (polytheists, disbelievers and wrong-doing). 
 

Pickthall

Bethink you: If it is from Allah and ye disbelieve therein, and a witness of the Children of Israel hath already testified to the like thereof and hath believed, and ye are too proud (what plight is yours)? Lo! Allah guideth not wrong-doing folk.
 

Yusuf Ali

Say: "See ye? If (this teaching) be from Allah, and ye reject it, and a witness from among the Children of Israel testifies to its similarity (with earlier scripture), and has believed while ye are arrogant, (how unjust ye are!) truly, Allah guides not a people unjust."

The Arabic word that is used is "Mithlihi". The meaning according to the Arabic dictionary by Abdul Mannan Omar is as below:

So we see the words (to it's like/to it's similarity) being mentioned in this verse.

Implying that the similarities in the Bible and Quran are a means to acquire faith in the Quran. Allah is showing that this is a continuation and perfection of the stories mentioned in the Bible. 

Whereas on one hand, the Jews and the Christians are telling us that because there are similar stories in the Quran and the Bible, and the Quran came later, so it is natural to assume that the Quran copied the Bible. But Allah SWT on the other hand is telling us, that the very reason to believe in this Quran is because of this similarity in accounts. That these books have come from the same divine source.

One such example of continuation and perfection of the stories can be witnessed in the creation of the heavens and earth in 6 days. Both the Quran and the bible speak about it. But the difference is that in the book of Genesis, God 'rested' after the creation whereas in the Quran, Allah highlights that 'no weariness touched Him'.

A counter question that can be asked of the critics of Islam is that, if there were no similar accounts in the Quran in relation to the Bible, would the critics than accept it as the word of God or will be more skeptical in their approach?

In conclusion, for the Quran to be a divine revelation, it is not necessary for it to be different or unique from the previous scriptures which it claims to be a continuation of. 

Anything wrong that I have said are from the evils of my own self. Anything good from this is from Allah Subhanawa Taala the Highest of the High and Purest of the Pure.

 

Bart Ehrman (Misquoting Jesus) - Fabricated accounts in the New Testament - The Woman taken in Adultery

Bart Ehrman has highlighted in his book Misquoting Jesus on one very  popular passage that is often found in Hollywood movies about Jesus and also in preachings and seminars in the Church. But it is astonishing to know that this story might have been a fabrication edited by a later scribe as it is not found in the oldest manuscripts of the Gospel of John. Let's read what Bart Ehrman has to say about this. 

Bart Ehrman's Book

Misquoting Jesus 

(Pages 63,64,65)

 

The Woman Taken in Adultery

The story of Jesus and the woman taken in adultery is arguably the best known story about Jesus in the Bible; it certainly has always been a favorite in Hollywood versions of his life. It even makes it into Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ, although that movie focuses only on Jesus's last hours (the story is treated in one of the rare flashbacks). Despite its popularity, the account is found in only one passage of the New Testament, in John 7:53-8:12, and it appears not to have been original even there.

The story line is familiar. Jesus is teaching in the temple, and a group of scribes and Pharisees, his sworn enemies, approach him, bringing with them a woman "who had been caught in the very act of adultery." They bring her before Jesus because they want to put him to the test. The Law of Moses, as they tell him, demands that such a one be stoned to death; but they want to know what he has to say about the matter. Should they stone her or show her mercy? It is a trap, of course. If Jesus tells them to let the woman go, he will be accused of violating the Law of God; if he tells them to stone her, he will be accused of dismissing his own teachings of love, mercy, and forgiveness.

Jesus does not immediately reply; instead he stoops to write on the ground. When they continue to question him, he says to them, "Let the one who is without sin among you be the first to cast a stone at her." He then returns to his writing on the ground, while those who have brought the woman start to leave the scene—evidently feeling convicted of their own wrongdoing—until no one is left but the woman. Looking up, Jesus says, "Woman, where are they? Is there no one who condemns you?" To which she replies, "No one, Lord." He then responds, "Neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more."

It is a brilliant story, filled with pathos and a clever twist in which Jesus uses his wits to get himself—not to mention the poor woman— off the hook. Of course, to a careful reader, the story raises numerous questions. If this woman was caught in the act of adultery, for example, where is the man she was caught with? Both of them are to be stoned, according to the Law of Moses (see Lev. 20:10). Moreover, when Jesus wrote on the ground, what exactly was he writing? (According to one ancient tradition, he was writing the sins of the accusers, who seeing that their own transgressions were known, left in embarrassment!) And even if Jesus did teach a message of love, did he really think that the Law of God given by Moses was no longer in force and should not be obeyed? Did he think sins should not be punished at all?

Despite the brilliance of the story, its captivating quality, and its inherent intrigue, there is one other enormous problem that it poses. As it turns out, it was not originally in the Gospel of John. In fact, it was not originally part of any of the Gospels. It was added by later scribes.

How do we know this? In fact, scholars who work on the manuscript tradition have no doubts about this particular case. Later in this book we will be examining in greater depth the kinds of evidence that scholars adduce for making judgments of this sort. Here I can simply point out a few basic facts that have proved convincing to nearly all scholars of every persuasion: the story is not found in our oldest and best manuscripts of the Gospel of John; its writing style is very different from what we find in the rest of John (including the stories immediately before and after); and it includes a large number of words and phrases that are otherwise alien to the Gospel. The conclusion is unavoidable: this passage was not originally part of the Gospel. 

How then did it come to be added? There are numerous theories about that. Most scholars think that it was probably a well known story circulating in the oral tradition about Jesus, which at some point was added in the margin of a manuscript. From there some scribe or other thought that the marginal note was meant to be part of the text and so inserted it immediately after the account that ends in John 7:52. It is noteworthy that other scribes inserted the account in different locations in the New Testament—some of them after John 21:25, for example, and others, interestingly enough, after Luke 21:38. In any event, whoever wrote the account, it was not John.

That naturally leaves readers with a dilemma: if this story was not originally part of John, should it be considered part of the Bible? Not everyone will respond to this question in the same way, but for most textual critics, the answer is no.