Why refute it? It's the circular reasoning of an unsound mind.
The answer is of course all of the contradictions between various versions of different "holy" texts. Which is the infallible version? How can you tell which version is infallible? If something is proven false or contradictory within the infallible version, how would you reconcile that? And if none of the holy texts are infallible, how was the message corrupted? How did something incorrect become a part of the holy text? Mistranslation? Mistake? Deliberate editing for personal or political machinations? If one of those is possible, how can you trust any of it?
A believer of any faith will not find this argument convincing, and a non-believer will find this conclusion obvious.
Exactly as /u/Zachariah said: god's words are all interpreted by humans, so whatever your preferred flavour, you have to admit there might be some errors in it. The alternative is claiming that some humans not only perfectly understood god (despite the agreed imperfection of humans), but that they then correctly relayed it to everyone else.
But also exactly as the others said: someone who believes this in the first place isn't going to be swayed by logic, unless they want to be.
It's a circular argument. "It's the way it is because that's how God is" isn't really adding any logic to the discussion.
God isn’t the one doing the writing. Humans make mistakes and misunderstand all the time. Even language itself is imprecise.
