
Mark Bird
1.4K posts

Mark Bird
@MBird777
Christian, Conservative, College Professor (GBSC). Passionate about Theology, Apologetics, Ethics, and Discipleship. Worldview matters.
Alexandria, KY Katılım Şubat 2014
157 Takip Edilen232 Takipçiler
Mark Bird retweetledi

.@benshapiro’s show opener today is spot on:
He says that America is dividing into two new parties.
The battle is btw the “American Exceptionalists” & the “Bipartisan Grievance Party.”
American Exceptionalists: “America is awesome. We have historically been awesome, and we will be awesome again if we do the hard things that we must do.”
Grievance Party: “America is not awesome, was never awesome, and will only be awesome if we fundamentally rewrite the American bargain and also retreat from the world for our great sins.”
He says this battle will define our future as Americans.
English
Mark Bird retweetledi

It is possible for Christians and conservatives to do two things at once.
We can generally support President Trump based on his policies and actions, things which we voted for.
AND we can call out wrong attitudes, speech, and behavior that is inconsistent with biblical truth.
Neither of these necessarily exclude the possibility of the other.
Something to think about.
English
Mark Bird retweetledi

Proud fundamentalist who believes the Genesis account of creation and that there was a literal Adam and Eve!! sorry to embarrass you intellectuals, but we’re not going to stop believing the text!
Tom Walker@tomrwalker
@garetrobinson @HonestYPTweets Exactly. Wright has tried to get the evangelical reputation away from the anti-intellectualism Mark Noll laid out in The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind but the fundamentalists continue to be persistent in their uninformed certainty away from a Wesleyan quadrilateral approach.
English
Mark Bird retweetledi
Mark Bird retweetledi

Can anyone recommend a Protestant podcaster who offers an apologia of our theology against Catholic theology who is a clear creationist—six days, global flood?
I know there are some who do this who are local flood, symbolic creation type of people and I’m not interested in them. If it’s someone, for example, who would promote Biologos and Francis Collins or work with Biologos, I don’t want that guy.
Is there anyone like this?
English
Mark Bird retweetledi
Mark Bird retweetledi

🚨HUGE NEWS: After working on this behind the scenes for awhile now, we are excited to announce that EVERY EPISODE of The Charlie Kirk Show is now available.
You asked, we delivered.
From the first few episodes in May 2019 where it was just me and CK with a mic and a Zoom recorder to our first interview with Don Jr., through the 2020 election and into 2024 and the Trump transition, listen to all of your favorite Charlie episodes at your leisure.
This took some doing, so please take advantage of the CK back catalogue.
Charlie will never be forgotten.
English
Mark Bird retweetledi

Stop scrolling and watch this...
You will never hear a Republican give a better answer on why we must END all foreign migration.
Rep. Brandon Gill: "I don't want to hear muslim calls for prayer in my community. I don't want the caste system in my children's schools because people don't assimilate.
"I want to live in an America that is actually AMERICAN!"
"We have a distinct heritage, a distinct culture that’s rooted in historical experience in the United States. And that’s something that we as conservatives should seek to actually CONSERVE."
"And that means NOT flooding our country with infinity immigration every single year — whether it’s because of illegal immigration or legal immigration. It NEEDS to end."
We need to stop allowing floods of immigrants to take over our communities and turn them into something unrecognizable.
Spot on.
English
Mark Bird retweetledi

I didn’t have much of a take on Trump‘s post today. I’m not a big foreign policy kind of gal.
But what I DO observe is that a whole bunch of the evangelical media class who claim to be both conservative and Christian will truly look for any possible opening to distance themselves from Trump by claiming that the president is somehow outside the stream of our highly vaunted, oh-so-respectable political standards.
Which is of course ridiculous when you look at the history of our political leaders and what THEY have done and said.
So they want the credit for being conservative Christians, and they may even vote for exclusively Republican candidates, but they want to make sure everyone knows they don’t actually like those yucky Republican representatives who actually get things done.
It’s a really dumb, boring game and I’m so tired of it. It’s actually kind of gross how much you guys want to signal that you should never be associated with anything Trump.
English
Mark Bird retweetledi

Democrats used the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to destroy the black family structure.
• Every census from 1890 to 1950 showed that black labor force participation rates were higher than those of whites.
• In 1950, 72% of all black men and 81% of black women had been married
Pregnancies had been decreasing; both poverty and dependency were declining, and black income was rising in both absolute and relative terms to white income.
• In 1965, 76.4% of black children were born to married women.
What change?
After the magnificent Dr. King advocated for peace and inclusion, this led to white guilt which Democrats used to take advantage of to fund President Johnson’s “War on Poverty
This attacked longstanding values and principled behavior within the black American community
This is what Democrat Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan called “defining deviancy downward.” & with Civil Rights Act of 1964 giving legal credence to making any sort of behavioral judgment toxic, the culture that held together the black American family was fundamentally changed.
The result:
• The 1960 census showed the first signs of a decline in black marriages, with acceleration in later years.
• In 1980, 31% of all black first-born children were born to teenage mothers.
• By 1992, 54% of all black children were living only with their mothers.
• From 1990 to 1994, 77% of first births to black women were premarital.
• By the 2000s, 75% of blacks with a high-school degree or some college were not married.
• Less than half of black students graduated from high school in 2005.
• Today, black males between the ages of 14 and 17 commit homicide at ten times the rate of white and Hispanic males of the same age combined.
• In many urban areas, the black illegitimacy rate is well over 80%.
Democrats hide our history because they intend to repeat it. They used white guilt to destroy us before. Do you think it’s random things got worse after BLM? We have to put our strings down. I am tired of us not being tired of being their puppets.
What do we have to lose? We already lost ourselves along the way…
English
Mark Bird retweetledi
Mark Bird retweetledi

I saw two stories about the bullet that killed Charlie Kirk and they couldn't have been more different.
One story said, “The bullet used to kill Charlie Kirk did not match the rifle allegedly used by suspect Tyler Robinson”.
That headline is designed to raise your heart rate: WHAT?! They don't match?! What else did they lie about?!
The second headline emphasized important context: there was an “inconclusive link between the bullet from the autopsy and the rifle.”
So, the bullet was too destroyed to tell if it matched at all. That's a huge difference.
This is the key to surviving in today's insane media landscape. When you read a headline, ask yourself: what kind of narrative are they trying to build in my mind? Are they telling me what to think or giving me the facts needed to make my own decision?
English
Mark Bird retweetledi

Mark Bird retweetledi
Mark Bird retweetledi
Mark Bird retweetledi

I asked the AI study guide in Logos Bible Software about the term angel of the Lord in the Old Testament and why evangelical scholars interpreted that to mean a pre-incarnate version of Christ. I further asked it about the Jewish interpretation. I think the answer is interesting as it always is.
Angel of the Lord
> Many evangelical scholars believe that the term angel of the Lord in the Old Testament describes pre-incarnate appearances of the son of God. Why did they come to believe that God is not an angel his son is not an angel so how did Bible scholars come up with the theory that the term angel of the Lord was in fact a pre-incarnate Christ? Also, how did the Jews interpret that phrase and how was that phrase? translated in the Hebrew scriptures.
Evangelical scholars arrived at the preincarnate Christ interpretation through careful textual analysis rather than theological assumption. The angel of the Lord identifies himself as Yahweh in accounts like Abraham and Jacob’s encounters, speaking both for and as God, while others identify him as God—as seen in Hagar’s and Joseph’s stories.[1] Although Scripture teaches that only God deserves worship, the Angel of the Lord accepts reverence and worship.[1] These characteristics—combined with the angel’s divine knowledge and actions—suggested a figure distinct from ordinary messengers yet possessing divine attributes.
A crucial observation strengthened this interpretation: theologians noticed the phrase “the angel of the Lord” never appears after Jesus arrives in the New Testament, suggesting that once the incarnation occurred, this unique heavenly representative became obsolete because Jesus became God’s earthly, visible representative.[2] Unlike other angelic beings who refused worship because they were creatures, the angel of the Lord accepted it without rebuke, and unlike other angels who emphatically declared their creatureliness when people sought to worship them, the angel of the Lord did not.[3]
Regarding Jewish interpretation, the evidence is complex. Jewish theologians prior to the New Testament era, observing texts featuring the Angel and other “dual Yahweh” language, developed a theology of two powers in heaven—a teaching Jewish authorities declared heresy after the second century AD.[4] In the Septuagint (Greek translation), only 33 of 56 occurrences carry the definite article, making it difficult to determine conclusively whether Alexandrian Jewish translators understood this “Angel” as having unique identity or as simply one of God’s heavenly hosts.[5] The Aramaic Targums, however, rendered Genesis 4:1 as “I have gotten a man, the angel of Jehovah” or “the angel of the Lord,” suggesting rabbis recognized something supernatural in the text.[6]
[1] David J. MacLeod, “The Trinity and Scripture,” Emmaus Journal (2002), 11:2:195.
[2] René A. López, “Identifying the ‘Angel of the Lord’ in the Book of Judges: A Model for Reconsidering the Referent in Other Old Testament Loci,” Bulletin for Biblical Research (2010), 14.
[3] Douglas McCready, He Came down from Heaven: The Preexistence of Christ and the Christian Faith (Downers Grove, IL; Leicester, England: InterVarsity Press; Apollos, 2005), 180–181.
[4] Michael S. Heiser, The Bible Unfiltered: Approaching Scripture on Its Own Terms (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2017), 67.
[5] John M. Jr. Baze, “The Angel of the Lord in the Old Testament—Part II,” Conservative Theological Journal (1998), 2:4:66.
[6] Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, Ariel’s Bible Commentary: The Book of Genesis (San Antonio, TX: Ariel Ministries, 2008), 115–116.
English
Mark Bird retweetledi

Mark Bird retweetledi
Mark Bird retweetledi






