A Christmas Story – The Lowedown

September 16, 2026September 16, 2026

Einstein, the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the “Fudge Factor”

Do you like fudge?

Who doesn’t?

Fudge is deliciously rich chocolatey goodness.

But fudge can also be bad, depending on the context, as Ralphie demonstrated in this classic scene from “A Christmas Story”.

Using “fudge” as a replacement for the F-word is obviously bad.

But there’s another situation in which fudge is considered bad, and that’s when someone provides misleading or incomplete information in order to direct an outcome or conclusion that they want.

In their book “I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist”, authors Norman Geisler and Frank Turek tell the story of Albert Einstein and the development of his general theory of relativity.

According to the authors, Einstein, in the early development of his theory, didn’t like where his calculations were leading. Einstein, like a lot of scientists at the time, had always assumed that the universe was eternal. If the universe is eternal, then there is no need for God as an explanation for its existence.

But as Einstein continued to work out the calculations of his theory, it was becoming more apparent that the universe, including all space, time, matter and energy, did indeed have a beginning.

Einstein was irritated by this development because he didn’t like the implication that followed, namely that if the universe was caused, there must be something, or someone, who caused it.

To address this irritation, Einstein introduced a universal constant into his equations that served to show that the universe was static and was NOT caused.

The problem with Einstein’s constant, which came to be known as a “fudge factor”, is that it was shown to be false, a mathematical error that appeared to be introduced purely for philosophical reasons.

Einstein’s theory of relativity, along with the corresponding Big Bang Theory are now as universally accepted scientific truths as gravity, and are the basis for the Cosmological argument for the existence of God.

The Cosmological argument is a logical proof that demonstrates that God must exist. The argument can be stated as follows:

1. Everything that had a beginning had a cause
2. The universe had a beginning
3. Therefore, the universe had a cause

The theist argues that the cause of the universe is God, while the atheist, who for years could always appeal to the universe as an eternally existing uncaused reality, now has to come up with an explanation for the existence of the universe without appealing to God as the first cause.

So what motivates a person to “fudge” the data?

The simple answer is that people don’t like where the data is leading so “fudging” the data is an attempted method of controlling a narrative.

So “fudge” can be good or it can be bad, depending on the context.

It turns out that the Jehovah’s Witnesses LOVE fudge, and not the good kind, because the evidence shows that Jehovah’s Witnesses, like Einstein, introduce lots of “fudge factors” into their arguments and even into the Scriptures in order to preserve the narrative to which they are committed.

How do the Jehovah’s Witnesses introduce “fudge” into their arguments?

The Jehovah’s Witnesses introduce “fudge” in a variety of ways, including ignoring context, twisting and changing the meaning of words, and even inserting words that are not in the original text, all for the purpose of controlling the interpretation of the biblical passages that most challenge their doctrinal preferences.

Ignoring Context

The most obvious example of the Jehovah’s Witnesses ignoring context is their interpretation of John 10:30, in which Jesus declares to the Pharisees that “I and the Father are one.”

I analyze this passage in greater detail in my blog post “Evidence that Jesus is God” and give a rebuttal to typical Jehovah’s Witness responses in my follow-up post “Evidence that Jesus is God – Part 2” but the summary is that Jesus makes the aforementioned statement (“I and the Father are one”) and the response from the Pharisees is to pick up stones to stone Jesus.

Jesus asks them why they want to stone him and their response is that they’re stoning him for blasphemy, that “you, a mere man, have made yourself God.”

The context clearly shows that the Pharisees understood Jesus’ statement to be a declaration of deity.

So how do Jehovah’s Witnesses explain this passage?

Simple. They whip up some theological fudge and completely ignore the context and clear meaning of the passage by claiming that Jesus, in declaring himself to be one with the Father, was simply affirming that he was “one in purpose” with the Father.

When challenged with this interpretation by appealing to the context, which clearly shows that the Jehovah’s Witness explanation is NOT the understanding the Pharisees had, Jehovah’s Witnesses double down by pointing to John 17, in which Jesus prays that his followers will be “one” as he and the Father are one.

So Jehovah’s Witnesses ignore the immediate context of John 10, which clearly indicates the Pharisees understood Jesus to be making a claim of deity, and appeal instead to a passage seven chapters later, in which Jesus is praying for his followers to experience missional and relational unity, and they apply that understanding to the John 10 passage.

This is some pretty rich doctrinal fudge.

Later in John 10:38, Jesus doubles down by saying, “understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.“ After making this follow-up statement of relational unity and equality with God, the Pharisees “again tried to seize him.”

The Jehovah’s Witnesses churn up some doctrinal fudge by ignoring immediate context, which clearly shows that Jesus was making a claim to deity, and applying a more distant and unrelated passage to promote the explanation that Jesus was simply asserting that he and the Father were in agreement on missional objectives.

It turns out that fudge is really helpful in providing alternative explanations for uncomfortable passages.

Changing the Meaning of Words

Another way the Jehovah’s Witnesses introduce fudge into their doctrinal arguments is by changing or twisting the plain meaning of biblical words, which effectively alters the plain meaning of straightforward verses.

A clear example of how they do this is with the word “firstborn” in Colossians 1:15 and 18. Again, I have outlined in detail the meaning of this passage in my blog post “What Does it Mean that Jesus is the Firstborn?” and my follow-up post “What Does it Mean that Jesus is the Firstborn? (Part 2)”.

The headline is that the word “firstborn”, which appears in well over 100 verses in the Scriptures, can mean “first in chronological birth order” but only when it is used in speaking of parent-child relationships. For example, when the text says, “Reuben was Jacob’s firstborn”, it clearly means that Reuben was the first in chronological order of all of Jacob’s offspring.

However, when the word “firstborn” is not used in relation to a parent-child relationship, it never carries the meaning “first in line”. Instead, it always carries the meaning of “pre-eminence” or “highest rank”.

So when Paul speaks of Jesus as “firstborn of creation” or “firstborn from the dead” it’s obvious that he’s not speaking of a parent-child relationship. Jehovah’s Witnesses bake up some doctrinal fudge by claiming that the word “firstborn” in both of these cases means something like “first in line.”

It should be noted that in this passage, Jehovah’s Witnesses also add the fudge of ignoring context, since it’s clear that Paul is seeking to establish Jesus’ superiority over all things when he explains “that in everything he [Jesus] might have the supremacy.”

Even though the word “firstborn”, when used in the way Paul uses it in Colossians, always has the meaning of “pre-eminence”, and even though the context demonstrates that Paul is making a case for Jesus’ supremacy in all things, Jehovah’s Witnesses still opt for the alternate interpretation that “firstborn” here actually means that Jesus was “first-created” by Jehovah. They insist that Paul’s intention was to communicate that Jesus was Jehovah’s first created being, despite the fact that there is a specific Greek word that literally means “first-created” and Paul does not use that word.

There’s another clear example of how the Jehovah’s Witnesses twist the meaning of words in order to change the meaning of a passage to more accurately reflect their theological preference.

In Hebrews chapter 1, the author is making the case that Jesus is superior to angels.

In verse 3, the writer says directly that “Jesus is the exact representation of His [God’s] nature.”

If this were not evidence enough that Jesus possesses a divine nature, just a few verses later in verse 6, God explicitly says,

“Let all God’s angels worship him.”

We know that only God is to be worshiped and here the angels are commanded to worship Jesus. What other conclusion is there but that Jesus is God, possessing a divine nature and exactly representing the nature of God?

The conclusion seems airtight, yet the Jehovah’s Witnesses apply a fresh batch of doctrinal fudge to explain this verse.

The Greek word for “worship” is “proskuneo” which literally means “to worship”. And yet, the Jehovah’s Witnesses change the meaning of “proskuneo” from “worship” to “do obeisance”.

It’s interesting to note that the 1961 version of the New World Translation rendered Hebrews 1:6 exactly as other bible translations do – in which God says, “Let all God’s angels worship him.” However, starting with the 1971 version of the New World Translation, and with all versions moving forward, the translation of this verse was changed to “let all of God’s angels do obeisance to him.”

The Greek word is still the same word (proskuneo) but the translation was changed.

What is the reason for the change?

Jehovah’s Witnesses cite the context as the reason for the change. Yet here is another clear example of the context being ignored and the plain meaning of the words being altered in order to promote an interpretation that aligns with the Jehovah’s Witnesses preferred doctrinal preference.

The context clearly demonstrates that Jesus is to be worshiped because he is God, for the text says that Jesus:

- is the radiance of the Father’s glory
- is the exact representation of the Father’s nature
- is the appointed heir of all things
- made the universe
- sustains all things by the power of his word
- sits at the right hand of Majesty

All of these statements point to and argue for the deity and supremacy of Jesus and yet, Jehovah’s Witnesses apply the “fudge factor” by ignoring context and changing or twisting the meaning of words to suit their prior theological interpretation.

Adding Words to the Text

There’s a third way Jehovah’s Witnesses add some doctrinal fudge to their theological arguments and that is by adding words to the biblical text that are not there originally.

The most obvious example of this is in their handling of John 1:1, in which the apostle John says,

¹In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

I explain and analyze this text in greater detail in my blog post, “A Modern Day Version of an Ancient Heresy”.

John, one of Jesus’ closest disciples, begins his gospel with words that clearly demonstrate that Jesus is divine.

The context makes this clear as John asserts that “Jesus was with God in the beginning”, indicating that Jesus existed BEFORE everything was created. That means Jesus is eternal.

John also states that Jesus made everything and is the source of life.

These are all qualities that point to divinity, supporting the first verse in which John states that Jesus was WITH God and Jesus IS God.

How do the Jehovah’s Witnesses handle this passage that seems to clearly demonstrate the divine nature of Jesus?

They apply the “fudge factor”.

In contrast to every other translation of the Bible and Greek scholars everywhere, the Jehovah’s Witnesses, in their New World translation, add the indefinite article “a’ into the text, even though it is not there in the original Greek, thus completely changing the meaning of the verse.

John 1:1 in the New World Translation reads,

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.

Notice the fudge factor insertion of the word “a” which has the effect of making Jesus a lesser “god” instead of equal with God.

Why exactly would they insert this word? What is the justification?

There is no contextual reason to do it for we’ve already seen that the context supports the original translation, which is that Jesus is divine in his nature.

Nor is there any grammatical reason to add the word. It’s not there in the original Greek and no non-Jehovah’s Witness translators have translated the verse in this way. In fact, the Jehovah’s Witness’ translation has been universally panned by the biblical translation community.

Unfortunately, this is not the only example of the Jehovah’s Witnesses fudging the data by adding words to the text.

In Colossians 1:16-17, the New World Translation adds the word “other” four times even though the word is not there in the original Greek (see my blog post “How Does Isaiah 44 Demonstrate that Jesus is God?”, which goes into greater detail on the Jehovah’s Witnesses mishandling of this verse).

Here is the NIV translation of Colossians 1:16-17, which matches just about every bible translation you will find:

For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. ¹⁷He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

The plain meaning of these verses indicate that Jesus is the creator of all things, he existed before all things and he holds all things together. Clearly, these two verses demonstrate Jesus’ power and his eternal nature, both qualities that provide strong evidence that Jesus is God.

Now look at how the Jehovah’s Witnesses translate this same verse in their New World Translation:

because by means of him all other things were created in the heavens and on the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All other things have been created through him and for him. ¹⁷ Also, he is before all other things, and by means of him all other things were made to exist (Colossians 1:16-17, New World Translation)

I’ve highlighted the four instances of the word “other” that have been inserted into the text by the Jehovah’s Witnesses in order diminish the divine nature of Jesus.

What is the justification for adding the word “other”?

According to the Jehovah’s Witnesses, the word “other” is added in order to make the text more readable. They cite other verses, such as Luke 13:2 where the word “other” is inserted to distinguish all the “other” Galileans from the subset of Galileans that Jesus had just mentioned.

This explanation is not sufficient as the insertion of “other” in Luke 13:2 does not change the meaning of the verse, while the insertion of “other” in Colossians 1:16-17 completely changes the meaning of the passage, making Jesus a created being instead of the eternally self-existent author of creation.

In short, Jehovah’s Witnesses, like Einstein with his theory of relativity, don’t like the implications of the passage, as it contradicts their preferred theological understanding. To rectifiy the situation, they insert a “fudge factor” to altar the equation, which yields a result that fits their ideological choice.

Jehovah’s Witnesses consistently engage in the theological Bible study error known as eisegesis, which means “to read into the text.”

What that means is that instead of allowing the Scriptures to inform their theological view, the Jehovah’s Witnesses conform the text to match their theological view. This is dishonest. It’s “fudging” the data to create the conclusion they want.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses have decided that Jesus is a created being, a lesser god, if you will, than almighty Jehovah. They establish this conclusion first and then every verse that seems to challenge their concusion must be interpreted in a way that affirms this prior doctrinal choice.

As has been shown, this is extremely difficult to do with the Scriptures because of the plethora of passages that point to Jesus’ divinity and support the traditional Christian doctrine that Jesus, in his very nature, is God.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses approach this difficulty in the same way Einstein did with his general theory of relativity, by inserting “fudge factors” into the text and into their explanations.

They insert these “fudge factors” in three different ways: by ignoring the immediate context that substantiates the traditional meaning and interpretation of debated texts, by changing and twisting the meaning of words beyond their normal and accepted use in order to force their interpretations onto the passage, and by inserting words into the text that are not there in the original Greek. The net effect of these “fudge factors” is to alter the plain and obvious meaning of passages that clearly refute their doctrinal view.

One would think that Einstein’s discovery that the universe had a beginning would have been a fatal blow to atheism, but it wasn’t. In fact, atheism as an ideology is more popular now than it was 100 years ago when Einstein was first formulating his theory.

Whenever someone is faced with evidence that challenges their official narrative, it creates ideological tension. How one deals with that ideological tension is very telling.

In the case of atheism, they simply dismiss or ignore any and all evidence that refutes their view. This is known as confirmation bias and it’s been around forever. Saul, later known as Paul, provides a clear example of confirmation bias, which I explain in my blog post “Saul’s Conversion and Confirmation Bias”.

In the case of Jehovah’s Witnesses, they reinterpret the evidence that challenges their narrative by introducing “fudge factors” that conform the evidence to their narrative. This is what is known as “cognitive dissonance”, a phenomenon in which information is not ignored or dismissed but is reinterpreted in such a way that the original narrative is maintained (see my blog post “Job’s Case of Cognitive Dissonance” for a biblical example).

The Jehovah’s Witnesses do this through their generous use of “fudge factors” – ignoring context, changing the meaning of words and adding words to change the intended meaning.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses are just like atheists in this respect: they are so committed to their ideology that they will resort to “fudging” the data as a way to explain and maintain their view.

Fudge as a dessert may taste good, but when used in misleading and dishonest ways, it can end up leaving a bad taste in your mouth. Just ask Ralphie, he’ll tell you.

Weaponizing our Words

James 3

²We all stumble in many ways. If anyone is never at fault in what he says, he is a perfect man, able to keep his whole body in check.

³When we put bits into the mouths of horses to make them obey us, we can turn the whole animal. ⁴Or take ships as an example. Although they are so large and are driven by strong winds, they are steered by a very small rudder wherever the pilot wants to go. ⁵Likewise the tongue is a small part of the body, but it makes great boasts. Consider what a great forest is set on fire by a small spark. ⁶The tongue also is a fire, a world of evil among the parts of the body. It corrupts the whole person, sets the whole course of his life on fire, and is itself set on fire by hell.

⁷All kinds of animals, birds, reptiles and creatures of the sea are being tamed and have been tamed by man, ⁸but no man can tame the tongue. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison.

⁹With the tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in God’s likeness. ¹⁰Out of the same mouth come praise and cursing. My brothers, this should not be. ¹¹Can both fresh water and salt water flow from the same spring? ¹²My brothers, can a fig tree bear olives, or a grapevine bear figs? Neither can a salt spring produce fresh water. (James 3:2-12, NIV)

The Daily DAVEotional

Growing up, there was almost nothing more exciting than checking the daily mail. This was before the internet and personal computers. We had no email, no social media, no cell phones. The only way to communicate with someone was either a personal phone call (using our rotary phones) or via old-fashioned snail mail.

Junk mail wasn’t as prevalent back then so when something came that had your name on it, there was excitement – just like Ralphie in this clip from A Christmas Story.

One day when I was in junior high, I checked the mail after school, and low and behold, there was a letter with my name on it.

There it was….a small white envelope with my name handwritten right in the center! There was no return address so I wasn’t sure who it was from.

Immediately I began to ponder in my mind what was inside and who it was from. I speculated that the letter could be from a secret admirer, a girl no doubt, who wanted to express her affection for me.

However, when I opened the envelope, it wasn’t what I expected. There was no note of affection or admiration from a secret admirer. In fact, there was no letter at all. It was just a 3×5 index card with the following Bible verse written on it:

⁶The tongue also is a fire, a world of evil among the parts of the body. It corrupts the whole person, sets the whole course of his life on fire, and is itself set on fire by hell.

I was perplexed. What was the purpose of this note and why was it sent to me? And more importantly, WHO would send me a Bible verse on an index card? Why this particular verse?

I never did find out who sent me that card and to be honest, I didn’t reflect much on the meaning of the verse or what the anonymous sender was trying to say to me.

Growing up, I was always extremely small for my age. As a result, I was an easy target for bullying and intimidation. I quickly learned that in the school playground jungle, what one lacked in size and strength could be made up with words. I learned the art of using quick zingers and snappy comebacks to make fun of others and cut them down to size.

My verbal skills of sarcasm, put downs and quick wit became well-known, not only amongst my family and friends in my childhood years, but later with my co-workers and managers at work. I remember more than once a manager at the Target store I worked at in college telling me that I was a smart-a**.

What I think that anonymous note sender was trying to say, though I didn’t digest it until much later, is that I had a sharp tongue and my words could easily damage others. Of course I knew this intellectually. I had often been the recipient of teasing and verbal jabs. I wrote here in a previous blog post about how words have the power to heal or hurt.

In this passage, James is telling his audience that our tongues are an indication of our overall ability to control ourselves.

Our tongue may seem insignificant but it can have an enormous effect in how it is used. It can do tremendous damage. James notes three things about the tongue.

First, the tongue is small but it can do GREAT damage. Just as a small spark can result in a large fire, so even the smallest and seemingly innocuous of words spoken by our tongues can do enormous harm to others.

Secondly, James says that the tongue is evil and poisonous. When we use our tongue in the wrong way, we actually corrupt our entire body. This is because the tongue is the vehicle by which people share their thoughts. If their thoughts are evil, the tongue exposes the person to be corrupt and evil.

Thirdly, James points out that the tongue is inconsistent. It can be used for praising God on one hand and cursing those made in the image of God on the other hand.

James is noting that if we praise God on one hand and curse people made in the image of God in the next breath, there is a problem. Jesus taught that this inconsistency is the result of our evil heart.

Unfortunately, when we come to know Jesus, the evil in our heart is not completely eradicated. As a result, we may find ourselves still having trouble controlling our tongue. This is why James says that the tongue cannot be tamed.

So what are we to do? To gain control of our tongue we actually must yield control of our heart and will to the Holy Spirit who resides in us. It’s only by the power of God’s Spirit that we can experience transformation of our hearts resulting in a change in our behaviors.

For more information on how we can yield control of our lives to the Holy Spirit, see the following blog posts:

An Issue of Control – Romans 8

Under the Influence – Ephesians 5

Reflection

In what ways do you find yourself misusing your tongue (your words and language)?

Think of a time when you used your tongue (either spoken or written words) for good or when you were the recipient of someone else’s healing words? How did that feel? What did you experience?

Think of a time when you were harmed or hurt by the words of another (written or spoken)? What emotions did you feel?

What steps can you take to ensure that your tongue is used for godly purposes instead of for hurtful purposes?

Photo by Keira Burton: https://www.pexels.com/photo/diverse-multiracial-male-students-intimidating-ethnic-female-classmate-on-street-6147114/

April 15, 2021

Jackie Robinson Day!

When I was a kid, the most exciting sound to me was the sound of the ice cream truck rolling down the street with its iconic tune blaring from the bull-horn speaker on the top of the truck.

Whenever we heard that sound we’d rush into the house and scrape together any spare quarters we could find. If we didn’t have any saved up, we’d run and ask mom for some spare change.

But while other kids were buying ice cream sandwiches, drumsticks or the red, white and blue bomb pops, I was buying packs of baseball cards.

I can’t say exactly when or why I started purchasing them but I can tell you I loved opening that wax paper to reveal the chalky flat stick of bubble gum. I would quickly scan through all the cards in the pack to see what treasures I had scored. If the pack contained a Dodgers player, I was elated, and if it contained a Dodgers player who was not yet checked off on my team checklist, it was even better.

1972 was the first year that I really started collecting cards and 1975 was the first year I collected enough cards that I actually completed a set. I continued collecting cards through the 70’s and into the 80’s.

One year as a teenager, I was in Kansas visiting my relatives and my uncle pulled out a scrapbook that he wanted to show me. My eyes bulged as he opened the pages and I saw page after page of baseball memorabilia, including many older baseball cards from the 50’s. Cards from the 50’s were a novelty to me as they represented the league before league expansion in the early 60’s and division play of the late 60’s. For some reason, the names on those cards seemed even more legendary than the iconic names of my youth.

My uncle turned the page and there it was, a 1954 Topps Jackie Robinson card. Picture Ralphie at the beginning of “A Christmas Story”, with eyes mesmerized and mouth agape at the items in the department store window display as the adult Ralphie says:

Higbees’ corner window was traditionally a high-water mark of the pre-Christmas season. First nighters, packed earmuff to earmuff, jostled in wonderment before a golden tinkling display of mechanized, electronic joooyyyy.

In that moment, I was Ralphie, spellbound as I saw the iconic Jackie Robinson card on full display.

The scrapbook wasn’t that big and it didn’t have a ton of cards. It was the product of my uncle’s childhood hobby, created when he was not much younger than I was at that moment.

A few years later I received an unexpected package in the mail. I didn’t remember ordering anything and this was well before the internet and online purchasing became a thing. I could see that it was from my uncle but I had no idea what it was.

I opened the package and there it was, the scrapbook that once belonged to my uncle. There was a note which I’m sad to say I’ve misplaced. I don’t remember exactly what the note said but knowing my uncle, he expressed that because of my love for baseball and baseball cards, he wanted me to have the cards he had collected as a kid.

Today marks the annual Jackie Robinson day in Major League Baseball. It’s a day to honor the man who broke the color barrier in the big leagues. I’m sad to say that as a kid, I knew next to nothing about what Jackie endured to open the door for black players to show their talents and skills in the MLB. I admired Jackie and other Dodger greats like Roy Campanella and Don Newcombe because they were some of the greatest to ever play the game. I admire them even more now because of the environment they lived in and the character and resolve they displayed in the face of unbelievable and unimaginable adversity.

Every player wears #42 on Jackie Robinson day and there are no names on the jerseys. The great Mariano Rivera was the last player to don the number 42 as his normal jersey number. No player will ever wear that number as his everyday number as the number 42 has been retired from every major league team.

As I write this, the Dodgers are playing the Colorado Rockies at Dodgers Stadium in one of the final remaining games of this annual day of remembrance. The Dodgers are leading the Rockies 3-2. I think it would be appropriate if the Dodgers were to score one more run and win the game 4-2!