Is the Bible corrupted or is it the Quran and the Hadith corrupted?

Every time I speak with a muslim they are quick to say that the Bible is corrupted; and if anything they are better followers of Jesus' teachings then the Christians.

Somehow, there's something I do not understand. The bible is made up of 66 books written by many different authors over a period of several hundred years in between each revelation; although the New testament had many books in a shorter period of time. All which are inspired by God and written during the lifetime of the prophets and yet there is no contradiction between the Old Testament and the New Testament.

Consider the New Testaments which was written by Eyewitnesses during the same lifetime of Jesus Christ and his disciples thereby qualifying the text as biographies and autobiographies versus the oral tradition of the Quran and Hadith which was only put into paper after for more than 100 years later.

I am sure we all have played this social game "whispering" or telephone game. The oral transmission game where the first person makes a statement to another person and this person then repeats the statement to another and so on; we all know that if I said "Jane had a small zit on her forehead" eventually after the message had passed on to more than 20 to 30 people chaining one after another the message I might most likely get back is that "Jane had a serious case of acne all over her head."

Comparing to a passage I read in "The Case For the Real Jesus" by Lee Strobel, The Telephone Game and Snoopy on a particular simulation of reliability of textual criticism whereby students plays the role of a scribe who attempts to reconstruct ancient text from copies of whereby some of the copies have mistakes copied intentionally or unintentionally. Eventually the result of the experiment most of the students is able to reconstruct the messages to get the core meaning, although it may be paraphrase; but the meaning was unchanged.

It is interesting that both the Torah (Old Testament) and New Testament are recognize by Quran that both books are from God yet it gives an interesting contradiction of Angels having no free will; while in the Genesis we read that the Arch Angel, Lucifer, rebelled against God because he wanted to become like God and be worshiped and that he convinced 1/3 of the Angels in heaven to follow him resulting that the rebelling angels were cast down to earth and became demons.

Well, no prizes to guess which text I rather believe and trust in. No matter how good intentions are on oral transmission, I seriously doubt after 100 years it is the very same context that the original was.

++++
This article extracted from the Wikipedia:

History of Hadith

Traditions of the life of Muhammad and the early history of Islam were passed down orally for more than a hundred years after Muhammad's death in 632.

Muslim historians say that caliph Uthman (the third caliph, or successor of Muhammad, who had formerly been Muhammad's secretary), was the first to urge Muslims to write the Qur'an in a fixed form, and to record the hadith. Uthman's labors were cut short by his assassination, at the hands of aggrieved soldiers, in 656.

The Muslim community (ummah) then fell into a prolonged civil war, which Muslim historians call the Fitna. After the fourth caliph Ali ibn Abi Talib was assassinated in 661, the Umayyad dynasty seized control of the Islamic empire. Ummayad rule was interrupted by a second civil war (the Second Fitna), re-established, and ended in 758 when the Abbasid dynasty seized the caliphate, and held it, at least in name, until 1258.

Muslim historians say that hadith collection and evaluation continued during the first Fitna and the Umayyad period. However, much of this activity was presumably oral transmission from early Muslims to later collectors, or from teachers to students. If any of these early scholars committed any of these collections to writing, they have not survived. The histories and hadith collections we have today were written down at the start of the Abbasid period, more than a hundred years after Muhammad's death.

Scholars of the Abbasid period were faced with a huge corpus of miscellaneous traditions, some of them flatly contradicting each other. Many of these traditions supported differing views on a variety of controversial matters. Scholars had to decide which hadith were to be trusted as authentic and which had been invented for political or theological purposes. To do this, they used a number of techniques which Muslims now call the science of hadith.