Did Mr. Rene Panoncillo of Iglesia ni Cristo provide a 3rd century manuscript with the words “MONOGENES HUIOS”? Mr. Cartujano showed this through the projector during his first cross examination. Did Mr. Panoncillo show a 3rd or 4th Century manuscript? NONE. What did Mr. Panoncillo do? He read the Jerusalem Bible (English translation) and his only answer was, “IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT OLD MANUSCRIPTS ARE ALWAYS CORRECT.” If we analyze the experts view on textual criticism, what can we say about this issue?
“For these aims, in general, the earlier the manuscript, the better.”(The Earliest Christian Artifacts, Page 15)
“It is now clear that monogenes theos is the earlier reading – and the preferred reading. This was changed, as early as the beginning of the 3rd century—if not earlier, to the more ordinary reading, monogenes huos. “(Encountering the Manuscripts, Page 336)
“The alternate argument is that monogenes theos was original and that a scribe changed it into ho monogenes huios because it fits well with Johannine style. “(Revisiting the Corruption of the New Testament, Page 74)
Even Bart Ehrman, an agnostic who does not believe in the Divinity of Jesus Christ said that earlier or older is the best.
“It must be acknowledged that the first reading is the one found in the manuscripts that are the oldest and generally considered to be the best—those of the Alexandrian textual family.”(Misquoting Jesus, Pages 161-162)
Mr. Panoncillo did not show any book during the debate which stated the statement of textual scholars that support, “IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT OLD MANUSCRIPTS ARE ALWAYS CORRECT.” particularly John 1:18.