On June 9, 1973, was the 105th running of the Belmont Stakes at Belmont Park in Belmont, New York in front of a crowd of 69,138 spectators. Facing a field of five horses, Secretariat won by 31 lengths, the largest margin of victory in Belmont history, and never since approached, winning the Triple Crown of horse racing, Kentucky Derby, Preakness, and Belmont Stakes. Secretariat continues to be considered the greatest horse in racing history.
On June 9, 1973, it would have been the epitome of foolishness to bet against Secretariat and among those who did bet on Secretariat, it would have been considered absolute lunacy to say that the horse would win by an unheard of before 31 lengths. Nevertheless, this extraordinary victory is no hypothetical notion but an exciting part of horse racing and American history. The seemingly impossible margin of victory unimagined before the race 2 minutes and 24 seconds later became reality.
The church has been told, indeed commanded by scholars who tout some notion of a past premonition of what the autographa said, to omit, for example 1 John 5:7. What makes these scholars less credible than the money losers who bet against Secretariat is that what Secretariat accomplished had never been achieved before in horse racing history, whereas, I John 5:7 has a robust historic and confessional significance to the church only recently rejected by secular scholars and their evangelical surrogates. Conversely, betting on the racing history of Secretariat to win the race made for a profitable day at the track.
For all the friends of Standard Sacred Text.com you may be wondering why betting or gambling is a blog topic at all. It is because, dear brothers and sisters, modern textual criticism is nothing more than high brow horse racing. Scholars have no more way of knowing what a textual reading is than the person laying a bet on a horse at the track. But what makes textual criticism at least as corrupt as horse racing is that they rig the race by means of publishers to make sure their horse or reading wins. Rigged race after rigged race gives the crowd in the stands the impression that the same horse always wins, e.g. NIV, ESV, et al., that it is really the fastest, the best reading, when really the reading is part of a rigged system designed to take the money of the spectators. Unlike the King James Bible and Received Text, modern versions and the critical text are financially and ecclesiastically unsustainable if not propped up by publishing corroborators.
The Church was not in need of a new bible at the end of the 19th c. but scholars and publishers decided we all needed another bible anyway. And because we had no need for another bible, a propaganda crusade by publishers pressed the novel edition on the spiritually weak ecclesiastical market. From the beginning, the race has been rigged against the Church under the auspices of scholarship. The Church would never have forsaken 1 John 5:7 until someone they thought was trustworthy told them to omit it for their own good.
So, in the world of chance, how secure is the wager to omit 1 John 5:7 considering its long-term reception by the Church? Or, on the wager to include 1 John 5:7? Let’s consider the wager from two vantage points, a race where the fix is in, or a race that lets the best reading win. If the fix is in, to omit or include really doesn’t matter, but considering the modern textual argument the fix is only oriented on omitting 1 John 5:7. Scholars and the Church already knows due to Church history that if the race is not fixed, 1 John 5:7 is the sure winner, and from the position of placing a wager, one will return from the seminary classroom a richer person by holding to the passage.
Horse racing “experts” before the 105th running of the Belmont States would have told all 69,138 spectators that day that no horse could win by 31 lengths, a laughable bit of “expert” trivia now proven to be absolutely false. “Experts” are now telling us they know what is in the autograph and that 1 John 5:7 was not in the original writing of the Apostle John, an equally laughable bit of “expert” trivia. But what makes the textual critical “expert” even less credible than horse racing aficionados, is that 1 John 5:7 was already part of the Church’s vocabulary and confessions; it had to be omitted from the ecclesiastical text, whereas no horse had ever won a race by 31 lengths. Based on the evidence available, wagering on 1 John 5:7 is even a better bet than wagering on the fact that Secretariat would win by 31 lengths which makes omitting 1 John 5:7 a bad bet.
Standard Sacred Text.com 