What?! We have no original Bible? Just some papyri?

Jon Spoonfed Dean asked a good question: “Strange how they didn’t preserve the early bible nor the Quran ...is that because the “books” were not important or created at the time or the prophets? The messenger delivers the basic guidelines and then hundreds of years later politics jumps on the branding and develops “books” Y K asked a similar question, saying, “My point is that you show fourth century AD Bibles the same way that there are 4th/ 5th century AH Qurans. What you allude to is that since the cult of Muhammad is about 600 years younger than that of Christ, the later should be judged by higher standards”? And finally Pub Lunch similarly states, “An issue is that Jay says the NT was written down within the lifetime of the people who knew Jesus, yet the earliest manuscripts are from 300 years later? Isn’t that the same as the oldest manuscript for the Koran?” These are valid questions, suggesting that I'm not using the same criteria for both the Bible and the Qur'an when demanding original manuscripts. So, let me help you understand why you can't do a like-with-like comparison, because the environment when the Bible was written was completely different than that when the Qur'an was written 600 years later. Up until the 4th century, Christians were a poor and persecuted community, and had to hide from the hostile authorities (i.e. the Romans), so that all of their Bibles were written on Papyrus (interlocking papyrus leaves), a poor man's paper, which disintegrated within 100 years because it was written only on very fragile leaves. That is why we wouldn't expect to find any of the original Biblical writings. What's more, in around 300 AD thousands of Bibles were destroyed and burned by the Edict of Diocletion, so that by the 4th century, only fragments of papyrus remained. Muslims, however, cannot make the same excuse for not finding any of their original Qur'ans, since their traditions tell us that all of their earliest Qur'ans were commissioned and produced by Caliphs, who were extremely wealthy and powerful, and so could easily afford to write their Qur'ans on Parchment and Vellum (i.e. animal skins), which are very expensive to cure, but because of their durability can last for 1000s of years. Consequently, all of their earliest existing 8th and 9th century Qur'ans (i.e. the Topkapi, the Samarkand, the Ma'il, the Petropolitanus, the Huseini and the Sana'a manuscripts) are all written on durable parchments. That is why we must refrain from including both the Biblical and Qur'anic manuscripts in the same basket. We wouldn't expect the Biblical Papyrus manuscripts to be around today, whereas there is no excuse for an Uthmanic manuscript, or even the 5 copies, sent to the 5 cities in 652 AD, all written on Parchment not surviving the intervening 1400 years, which is a very short time for parchment. Can you now understand, therefore, why I'm asking Muslims why they haven't been able to preserve even 1 of the 5 Qur'ans written on animal skins and commissioned by Uthman in 652 AD, and then sent to 5 cities; in fact sent there for that very reason...to preserve them? KidCSky summarizes it well when he says, “Essentially the Uthmanic codex, as of right now, is nothing more than a moniker (nickname) out of academic respect for a religion that claims there should be one. I’m not sure if Muslims themselves actually believe the story found in the Sunnah concerning how their Qur'an was created is anything more than propaganda". © Pfander Centre for Apologetics - US, 2020 (44,080) epic-trailer--by-rafael-krux-from-filmmusic-io