There can't be any correct description unless God provides it,
and if He does, there will be only one.

Let's wrestle with this piece of "logic" for a minute, starting with the first sentence.

Is the first sentence really true? Couldn't God have created the Universe and then stepped back and watched as humans try to "figure it out"? Might he not be impressed, or at least amused, that humans developed science as a means of gathering credible information about his universe? And that they developed logic and philosophy likewise? And might he not be somewhat entertained by the progress humans have made using these three disciplines over the last many thousand years? And might he not believe, or expect, that humans will indeed one figure day the Universe out even without his intervention? Or that he's just sitting back waiting to see if we can?

In short, it's possible that humans can determine the "correct description" of things without divine intervention. You only quibble with that because you suppose that science, philosophy and logic can only answer the "what" and not the "why", and you further presuppose that there is indeed a "why", and even further that God wants us to know it.

But, what if there's not a "why"? Or what if the why is...just for God's shits and kicks--much like we enjoy observing an ant hill for entertainment? Or, what if there's a why but God doesn't want us to know it since that might corrupt his "experiment"? After all, isn't it common to keep the subjects of experiments clueless as to its real purpose?

Now let's move on to the second sentence of your quote above. Is this sentence necessarily true? Perhaps God did at one time convey his message completely and perfectly to some loyal or worthy grunt. But...that grunt is not God, right? So that grunt won't be able to convey the message as perfectly or convincingly as God did, right? And even less so all the grunts that come after him (imagine a giant game of "telephone" lasting many thousands of years).

In that case, the message could be quite muddled by the time it got to us. Just like some languages originate from a single source but ultimately diverge to the extent that their respect speakers can no longer communicate, centuries of miscommunications, misunderstandings, legendary accretions, etc. could mean that there is no longer one "description" but a great multitude of them, and all of them wrong to a greater or lessor extent.

And, furthermore, if this is indeed the case, then the best way to piece together the original truth isn't to seize upon one of the present day descriptions and declare it to be the "one true one", because none of them are. If we know anything to a virtual certainty, it's that each and every one of the current descriptions has been muddled, or evolved, to at greater or lessor degree.

Just like with languages, it's simply inconceiveable that, absent divine intervention, one version would perfectly persist in its original state to the present while all others pervert or diverge from it. And, if God is gonna have to be constantly bothered to divinely intervene and correct the message, at least sometimes, every time some subsequent grunt miscommunicates it, is this really any easier on God than him just revealing his message correctly and perfectly to each person individually? I mean, if he really wanted his message to be reliably known and understood, wouldn't direct communication be his best bet? And surely such direct communication isn't beyond the capabilities of...God, right? He is GOD, after all.

Regardless, given that no existing version can be rationally expected to perfectly preserve the original description, then the best way to reconstruct the original is to, if anything, synthesize and harmonize all the various descriptions--to work out their commonalities and thus uncover their common "root". Just like we would, for example, with languages. Or genes. Or copies of the bible (via Textual Criticism). Or anything else that gets repetitively copied in an error prone way.

I know what you're thinking: But Jesus founded Christianity and we know that the books we have accurately preserve his teachings. We know that they have not been perverted.

But actually, as my book will show, we know the exact opposite, and we can prove it. I will do this in my book as it progresses.

But, even if that were not true and we did know that, in fact, the Bible perfectly preserves Jesus's teachings, it doesn't undermine my point at all. For who is to say that Jesus himself wasn't one of the later grunts who misunderstood and Miscommunicated the message. After all, we know that Jesus's teachings were a reworking, or a reinterpretation, of Judaism. And we know that Judaism shares much in common with the religions of ancient Egypt and Summeria. Perhaps God actually revealed his truth to Adam himself and everyone since, including Jesus, has simply misunderstood it and miscommunicated it leading to all the various religions that we have today?