you again. Shalom and blessings. It is this evidence that forms the basis of Brock’s complaint in this issue. B. Discussion To preserve • error for appellate review, a complaining party must make a timely and specific objection. See Tex. R.App. P. 33.1(a)(1); Wilson v. State, 71 S,W.3d 346, 349 (Tex.Crim.App.2002). Texas courts have held that points of error on appeal must correspond or comport with objections and arguments, made at trial. Dixon v. State, 2 S.W.3d 263, 273 (Tex.Crim.App.1998); see Wright v. State, 154 S.W.3d 235, 241 (TexApp. — Texarkana 2005, pet. ref'd). “Where a trial objection does not comport with the issue raised on appeal, the appellant has preserved nothing for review.” Wright, 154 S.W.3d at 241; see Resendiz v. State, 112 S.W.3d 541, 547 (Tex.Crim.App.2003) (<HOLDING>); Ibarra v. State, 11 S.W.3d 189, 197
holding that an issue was not preserved for appellate review because appellants trial objection does not comport with the issue he raised on appeal holding that an appellate court cannot consider an issue that was not preserved for appellate review holding that an issue is preserved for appeal where the issue was sufficiently raised for the court to rule on it   holding that the complaint on appeal must comport with the trial objection holding an issue not raised to the family court is not preserved for appellate review