The evidence we would say and I say again is contradictions. Since bible is the word of God it can't have contradictions. Also bible at many places records Jesus saying he can't do anything on his own, that miracles he does is God doing it through him, that he did not know everything which are opposite of what God can do!
Mistranslation will have different words not having the whole verse/books removed!
I would say that the problem with this contention is that you believe that the way God transmitted his truth is that every message has to be word for word. Kind of like a secretary taking dictation. That's not how communication from God works.
For instance, when in the list of 101 contradictions in the Bible it gives two different numbers
2. In that count how many fighting men were found in Israel?
- Eight hundred thousand (2 Samuel 24:9)
- One million, one hundred thousand (I Chronicles 21:5)
this is a historical report of an event which took place. Do you actually think that God said "Write down the number 800,000?" Not all of the Scriptures are a direct word from God, such as the 10 Commandments. You have to be able to look at the Bible and discern who is speaking, what the nature of the issue is, and whether it is a man simply reporting a fact, such as David's adultery with Bathsheeba, or if God is speaking directly, as in the prophecies of Daniel.
Your response is a rather common tactic among those who wish to discredit the Bible for one reason or another, yet there is no proof that the Biblical message was ever distorted, except that you say it is. That, sir, is not proof. You need to be able to give the original texts, which have long since disappeared, and then show that what is written now is different.
But more than that, to say such a thing infers that the men who died to defend and protect these truths were dishonorable men who did not protect the message that Jesus gave to them. It is a serious slander on their character, as well as the character of the whole Church. You see, it was the leadership of the Christian faith which presented the Gospel to the pagan masses of people. For there to be a change in the very message would mean that there was a collusion across the board with all the Apostles, with St. Paul, and with those who followed them.
Now if St. Paul had deviated from the message that the Apostles had received from Jesus, there would have been no small contention over this. We see that whenever there was a strange teaching that someone tried to introduce, the Church leadership called a council to discuss and either accept or reject what was being taught. If St. Paul was changing the message, then surely there would be a historical record of this argument between he and the Apostles,
yet none exists!
Furthermore, men do not die, sometimes in most horrible and gruesome ways, to defend that which they know is a lie, or that which they have colluded to make up.
"What.....why are you heating up that oil in big pot?"
"You are going be boiled alive for preaching that Jesus is God."
"What??? No, no Jesus! I don't know what you are talking about. It was all a big joke. We are just kidding!!! We'll stop. I'll be good, I promise!!"
You have to prove that the Apostles changed the message entrusted to them. You can't. You have to prove that St. Paul - as members of Islam state - changed the message of the Apostles and preached a false Gospel. You can't. And if Paul didn't and was willing to die for that message, then you know tat his disciples learned the same truth for which they were willing to die.
So your objection is an entirely made up objection with no basis.