Matthew Spicka

[Frank J. Fleming @IMAO_]

Candace Owens joins the Scooby Gang!

[Charlie Kirk @charliekirk11]

Today is Good Friday.

Thank you, Jesus for your amazing and unthinkable sacrifice. You died so that we would have life, and life in abundance.

“It was nine in the morning when they crucified him. The written notice of the charge against him read: the king of the jews … With a loud cry, Jesus breathed his last. The curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. And when the centurion, who stood there in front of Jesus, saw how he died, he said, ‘Surely this man was the Son of God!’”

Mark 15

[Glenn Beck @glennbeck]

All these arguments over bodycams for ICE and cameras in the courtroom for the Charlie Kirk case got me thinking: Why stop there?

Let’s make our POLITICIANS wear bodycams too.

Not all the time. Maybe just when they’re governing, talking to lobbyists, or around other politicians. I think you’d be amazed by how fast the corruption would disappear when it’s all on camera. And how fast half of Congress would retire.

[Wes Huff @WesleyLHuff]

I've often said that your English Bible has been changed -- not for the sake of corruption though but for clarity.

I find there are basically two extremes when it comes to the topic of textual corruption, and that these extremes basically amount to the same error.

On one side you have the radical skeptics. A radical skeptic is an individual who says something analogous to, "if the Bible is really a product of divine inspiration it would have zero issues throughout history. God would not allow scribes to copy it incorrectly, we would have the original copies written by the original authors perfectly and miraculously preserved." This position holds that because there is a history to the text and we have to evaluate it and toil over such an endeavor the text cannot be fully known or trusted. Any level of uncertainty collapses into a complete lack of knowledge of what God has said, and therefore, an utter lack in that being a standard for authority.

On the other side, you have textual absolutism (this term to my knowledge was coined by @mlward, Elijah Hixson, Peter Montoro, and Timothy Berg for their Textual Confidence Collective Podcast). A textual absolutist is an individual who takes any form of the text and treats that text as their final authority. This could mean a particular translation (eg: KJV, NWT, JST), a particular text (eg: Textus Receptus, LXX, Latin Vulgate), or a particular manuscript (eg: Stephanus' 1550 Greek New Testament, Codex Sinaiticus). Because a single form is held to as the authority any recognition of or evaluation towards the textual history, manuscripts, or complexity within the languages is waved away in order to land on a single and sole text.

Both of these suffer from the same problem: they look at the complexity of the history of the text of the Bible and dismiss it as too problematic -- either in denying that the text can be clear at all or to state that it must be *so* clear that there is no conversation concerning the matter.

In the example of the image below however, you can see how the text of the English Bible at Psalm 23 has changed over the last 1k years. This change is a good thing! The word of God in its meaning and intention does not change, but as a language like English changes so to do our translations for the sake of legibility. This says nothing about the base text (i.e. the Greek and Hebrew) but does speak to a change in the text of the Bible, and that change is a good thing! The language of the Bible changes as said language evolves, allowing the reader not only to understand what is written but to better apply it to their lives applicably and comprehensively.

Changed not for the sake of corruption, but for the sake clarity.

[Nick Freitas @NickJFreitas]

Here are a several things I would never do if I seriously believed my best friend in the world was brutally murdered as part of a conspiracy...

1. Reveal information from "inside sources" in such a way that would almost certainly get those sources killed if I really believed I was dealing with cold hearted murderers.

2. Slow roll details of my investigation to the public in such a way that would let the people I was investigating on to what I was looking for, where I was looking for it and who I was using inside their organization to find it.

3. Reveal critical information that could lead to their prosecution in such a way that could allow them to destroy, hide or alter evidence before it could be seized.

4. Implicate his wife and mother of his children, who he was madly in love with, without sufficient evidence.

5. Work 24/7 to destroy everything he had spent his life building, without sufficient evidence.

But those are just rules you might follow if you wanted to see his killer/killers brought to justice and protect his legacy and family...

You might do something very different if you had different motivations.

[Paul Ryan @SpeakerRyan]

This is the Party of Lincoln. We believe all people are equal in the eyes of God and our government. https://t.co/Ft2sCrQ9CX

[ThatSportsGuy24 @OGTH24]

Guyer HS football players carry the jersey of their lost teammate on the field. Wow..this deserves endless retweets

[Matthew Spicka @M_P_R_S_]

@BTenopir here you go buddy