Do Christians have the real Bible? Christian Vs Muslim Perspectives

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheemبِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,2 Tim. 3:16 refers to the Old Testament as scripture, for it reads:"and how from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures", the only scripture that existed during the infancy of Paul or Timothy would be the Tanach, Adam Clarke's exegesis agrees with me:"The apostle is here evidently speaking of the Jewish Scriptures; and he tells us that they are able to make us wise unto salvation provided we have faith in Jesus Christ. This is the simple use of the Old Testament.[1]" As for the claim that Peter refers to Paul's writings as scripture, the Pastorial of 2 Peter is well known not to have been authored by Peter, it's a homonymous pastorial: "A generation after Jude's vigorous letter was written, it was taken over almost word for word into what we know as II Peter. By the end of the second century, or soon after, so many books had been written in Christian circles about the apostle Peter, or under his name, that one could have collected a whole New Testament of works bearing his name. There arose a Gospel of Peter, Acts of Peter, The Teaching of Peter, The Preaching of Peter, The Letters of Peter, and The Revelation of Peter. Most of these laid claim to being from the pen of Peter himself. The one that claims this most insistently is II Peter. It comes from a time when Christians were seriously doubting the Second Coming of Jesus. A hundred years had passed since his ministry and death, and men were saying, "Where is his promised coming? For ever since our forefathers fell asleep, everything has remained as it was from the beginning of creation.[2]" Jacob then indicated that John Mill's works were not affecting his doctrine, rather the source he gave [3], proposed otherwise:"This apparatus revealed 30,000 variants among the witnesses, causing Roman Catholic scholars to decry the Textus Receptus as a ‘paper pope’ which was contradicted by the MSS of the New Testament. Some Protestants, too, attacked Mill’s work because they saw it as a threat to the Reformation principle of sola scriptura." In fact according to Jacob's source only one person as opposed to RC scholars and Protestant scholars supported Mill's work. Apparently one person is more important that most of Christendom at that point in time. What's worse is that the variation in 'scripture', amassing more than 30,000 variants contradicts the Bible's statement, "For God is not a God of confusion but of peace. As in all the churches of the saints." in 1 Cor. 14:33, since there are no two manuscripts which agree 100% and John Mill found 30,000 + variants, how can we know the 'truth' if the scripture is 'in confusion'? What's worse is that only one codex can be true, as the Bible attests to their only being one eternal scripture, "Your word, O LORD, is eternal; it stands firm in the heavens.", see Psalm 119:89. Jacob never answered which canonical codex was the real word of God, instead he conceded to it being a confused, contradictory, perpetual mess of variants and interpolations. Jacob insisted that there was no need for an original manuscript autograph as it is not a criteria for any textual critic, what he seems to be forgetting is that the reason no one asks is because they don't exist and they're constantly trying to decipher what the original could have been, Bart Ehrman says [4], "The necessity of applying textual criticism to the books of the New Testament arises from two circumstances: id) none of the original documents is extant, and ib) the existing copies differ from one another. The textual critic seeks to ascertain from the divergent copies which form of the text should be regarded as most nearly conforming to the original. In some cases the evidence will be found to be so evenly divided that it is extremely difficult to decide between two variant readings." The very reason for Textual Criticism is to develop an original reading, so his saying that we don't need to have the original is absurd, as the original would nullify having the need for the Science of Textual Criticism.Jacob's argument that because Muslim's don't have the original MSS of the Qur'an is a faulty one, not only do we have them [5], our liturgical transmission is independent of it and has preserved it alongside the massive amounts of textual transmission which occurred alongside it. His claim of Gerd Puin's variants is specified to only 3 MSS (which the NT also has: palimpsest) of 35,000 in Yemen and relegated to an Alif being written different and Surahs in other orders [6]. His claim of the Seerah and Sunnah being based on the 3rd and 4th centuries is due to abject ignorance of Ulum al Hadith, wherein the oral and aural (liturgical) transmission of ahadith (literally: narration) was a practise of Islam from the beginning [7]. Jacob then claims that P52 is no longer the oldest MSS as there was a discovery of older MSS, however no such evidence has been provided. I know of the claim, but the person who made the statement has not shown the alleged MSS to anyone. Therefore I am asking if Jacob has any empirical (physical) evidence of the existence of those MSS to present it, otherwise he's appealing to wishful thinking. To inform Jacob, my quote from both Aland and Ehrman referred to the entire corpus of Patristic writings and it's relevance in determining an original text's authenticity and as demonstrated, they are worthless. As for the claim that you can rebuild the original NT from the Patristic sources, this is easily debunked as any Bible from the time of Textus Receptus to the NA 28th GNT does not use Patristic sources, that's because Aland himself codified the NA editions along with Nestle. Any Bible produced from 1898 would be based on that GNT codex. I therefore challenge Jacob to produce one Bible that has been assembled solely on Patristic statements (he can't as none has ever been produced on such a criteria because it is impossible).He claims I did not 'defend' the Qur'an, but he does not say how or where. The Qur'an never mentions the Bible (Kitab al Muqaddas or Majmu ul Kutub), his reference refers to what Allaah sent to His Prophets which Jacob rejects (Qur'an 19:30). The Qur'an never refers to the books of the Jews and Christians, but to the revelation of Allaah (which he rejects, Q: 19:30). The book 'between' his hands refers to the Qur'an [8]. The Torah, Zabur and Injil were books given by Allaah to the Jews and Christians, not the books written by the Jews and Christians after being lost [9]. S. 5:13 is an incomplete quote, other verses rebuke them for corruption [10]. As for 2:79, see my opening statement. Sources: Adam Clarke's Exegesis, 2 Tim. 3. Edgar Godspeed's, An Intro. to the NT. CSNTM, http://bit.ly... Bart Ehr., The Text of the NT, 4th Ed, Preface. Islamic Awareness, http://bit.ly... Hamza Tzortzis, http://bit.ly... Sahih al Bukhari, Vol. 1, Book 1, Hadith 1. CC, http://bit.ly... Round 1, Myself. http://bit.ly...