Does the Bible or the Qur'an have stronger historical corroboration?

  • The New Testament Alone has been deemed 99.5% accurate.

    Archaeology has verified many claims the Bible makes about history. The Hittites were thought to be proof that the Bible is false because no such peoples were thought to have existed. Then BAM! The Hittites were proven to be legit, verifiable history. The Bible is the Word of God so consequentially, it is 100% accurate in every way!

  • The bible is indeed more accurate than the Quran

    Many stories of the bible have been proven true. In fact, the bible was written by multiple authors from different times including eye witnesses. Quran, on the other hand, was written only by Muhammad himself and is more scripture based in my opinion. Bible have also been around much longer than the Quran.

  • Other documents confirms

    There are other documents outside of the Bible that correlate and corroborate the accounts in it. If there are any that do the same for the quran, I've found none. Archaeologists have been able to find the locations that the Bible refers to and found evidence to support the claims made therein.

  • The Bible is a historical document, whereas the Koran is simply plagiarized work.

    Archeology has proved time and time again facts mentioned in the Bible. However the Koran has a lot of historical inaccuracies, like The currency used to buy off Joseph 'dirhams' is seven centuries too early, since it was not even invented. Crucifixion as a mode of execution as invented by the Persians in sixth century BC, whereas the Koran dates it back to the time of Joseph and Moses, which was in Egypt of the fifteenth century BC.... These two alone can prove that the Koran's author was ignorant of history and was merely recording oral transmissions without foreknowledge of the events.

  • Bible is defiantly more historical accurate than the quran because pretty much everything in it can be backed up by archeological findings.

    The Bible is even used by some archeologist to find city's and towns that people thought never existed. Not only that but the bible is written by many authors all written at different times. Even things that where prophesied in the old testament hundred of years before hand have been proven to be accurate to the day and time... So bible all the way.

  • Bible is more reliable

    More historical evidence has been found to support the Bible. The Bible was written at the time it occurred or shortly after. The Bible also pre-dates the Qur'an. Mohammed came to the mountain long after Moses and then Jesus came to the Mount. It is far more likely that the Qur'an was made up than that the Bible is made up.

  • All religion pretty much comes from the same place.

    While one probably has more "witnesses" who said that God talked to them specifically (GUESS WHICH THAT WOULD BE), both are from the same place, considering religion is a natural human tendency given our large brains but timidness while talking about death, so we kind of just hope that one of us is right about the god or gods up there. So the answer is neither, but yes, also no.

  • Yes.

    It is highly improbable that both of them have the exact same historical corroboration. Therefore, one of the must have stronger historical corroboration, and the answer to the question is more probably yes than no. A lot of other people who answered didn't seem to understand the question very well.

  • The Bible has a stronger historical corroboration.

    The Qur'an was written by Muhammad in the 4th century, and it was written by him alone. It was supposedly rooted in the Jewish faith; however, a single prophet attempted to rewrite religion. The Bible, however, was written by many authors throughout centuries. In addition, archaeological evidence supports many of the Bible stories, such as Nehemiah's wall.

    Posted by: SoWinif
  • I believe the Bible has a stronger historical corroboration, because there have been multiple arguments from the Bible that have been proven true.

    The Bible has a much stronger historical corroboration than the Qur'an. Archaeologists and historians have been able to prove that the stories of the Bible are accurate and true, so when individuals try to argue against the validity of the Bible, it is impossible due to the background research that has been done.

    Posted by: AmazingJunior58
  • Neither has a stronger corroboration, as both are rooted mostly in unconfirmed events, and even those proposed are questionable.

    History is made by the men who write it. Christianity today is far different from what Jesus had in mind, and the same is true for every other religion. Unless one was there at any proposed event, we can't say for certain any of it is verifiable. With that being said, there are of course facts of history in both, but we will never know what really happened, with certainty.

    Posted by: daveyxh
  • Neither of these books has any greater claim to historical fact.

    I believe that both of these books of scripture are spiritual in nature, and it is therefore difficult to judge them on non-spiritual guidelines, like history. However, I believe that both the Bible and Qur'an are equally historically valid, and that neither one has any greater claim to historical fact. That does not equate to one or the other being more true, it simply means that both are equally a part of true history.

    Posted by: MariaR
  • I believe the Bible has more, because much more of it has been proven in recent times.

    Both the Bible and Qur'an have historical corroboration. I believe that the Bible has a stronger historical corroboration. There have been many things that were written about in the Bible that have been found by historians, and proven that they were true. The Bible goes into details about the cities Jesus visited, and there have been buildings with the same description found in the same spot that they were said to be.

    Posted by: J_Mooney
  • Historical corroboration is meaningless for both the Bible and Qu'ran.

    Arguments about the relative historical accuracy of the Bible and Qu'ran are silly. Neither text has any historical corroboration for its fundamental claim - that the text is divinely inspired and provides us with an understanding of our relationship with and responsibilities to a supernatural creator. The fundamental claims are based on faith, and there is no point to pretend otherwise.

    Posted by: LuciaL
  • I believe the Bible has stronger historical corroboration, because more research has been performed to prove this.

    As a westerner, it's difficult to say if my perception on this issue is fully informed. I am admittedly not a scholar on the Qur'an, and this is, in part, due to the fact that I live in a Christian society. That being said, I think more research has been done into the historical construction of the Bible.

    Posted by: jaanekyon
  • The Bible and the Qu'ran are both made up works of literature.

    I don't think that either of them are have a stronger historical corroboration. They are both biased, both are written by mere humans, edited, and people choose to pick a meaning on the passages of what it means to them. They both are equal in their historical context and used in various ways that are not what Jesus or Mohammad would do!

    Posted by: PointlessElbert47
  • Religion is a personal value and belief system and, while parts of it are based on historical fact, most of it is skewed to someone's ideals.

    I believe there a small basis of historical truth in the Bible and the Qur'an, but it has been misinterpreted to fit in with the ideals that both books are preaching. Just as if you are proving a scientific theory, you have to take all the facts and ideas, come up with a hypothesis, then prove it, and come up with a viable conclusion. Picking through history and science, just to see what fits into religion, has no true justification.

    Posted by: ScrawnyNormand46
  • I believe that the Bible has a deeper meaning and is stronger than the Qur'an.

    The Qur'an calls for unnecessary violence. Although the Bible and the Qur'an both serve the same purpose, just for two different religions. The Bible is more passive.

    Posted by: lacedjeans

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.