Confirmation Bias – The Lowedown

September 16, 2026September 27, 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 chronological order”. 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 a “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.

And that’s the point. in complete violation of standard translation practices, Jehovah’s Witnesses add words in order to change the clear meaning of the text to match their pre-determined theological preferences!

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 clear and intended meaning of passages.

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.

Who’s Your Daddy?

John 8

³¹Jesus said to the people who believed in him, “You are truly my disciples if you keep obeying my teachings. ³²And you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”

³³“But we are descendants of Abraham,” they said. “We have never been slaves to anyone on earth. What do you mean, ‘set free’?”

³⁴Jesus replied, “I assure you that everyone who sins is a slave of sin. ³⁵A slave is not a permanent member of the family, but a son is part of the family forever. ³⁶So if the Son sets you free, you will indeed be free. ³⁷Yes, I realize that you are descendants of Abraham. And yet some of you are trying to kill me because my message does not find a place in your hearts.³⁸I am telling you what I saw when I was with my Father. But you are following the advice of your father.”

³⁹“Our father is Abraham,” they declared.

“No,” Jesus replied, “for if you were children of Abraham, you would follow his good example. ⁴⁰I told you the truth I heard from God, but you are trying to kill me. Abraham wouldn’t do a thing like that. ⁴¹No, you are obeying your real father when you act that way.”

They replied, “We were not born out of wedlock! Our true Father is God himself.”

⁴²Jesus told them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, because I have come to you from God. I am not here on my own, but he sent me. ⁴³Why can’t you understand what I am saying? It is because you are unable to do so! ⁴⁴For you are the children of your father the Devil, and you love to do the evil things he does. He was a murderer from the beginning and has always hated the truth. There is no truth in him. When he lies, it is consistent with his character; for he is a liar and the father of lies. ⁴⁵So when I tell the truth, you just naturally don’t believe me! ⁴⁶Which of you can truthfully accuse me of sin? And since I am telling you the truth, why don’t you believe me? ⁴⁷Anyone whose Father is God listens gladly to the words of God. Since you don’t, it proves you aren’t God’s children.”

⁴⁸The people retorted, “You Samaritan devil! Didn’t we say all along that you were possessed by a demon?”

⁴⁹“No,” Jesus said, “I have no demon in me. For I honor my Father—and you dishonor me. ⁵⁰And though I have no wish to glorify myself, God wants to glorify me. Let him be the judge. ⁵¹I assure you, anyone who obeys my teaching will never die!”

⁵²The people said, “Now we know you are possessed by a demon. Even Abraham and the prophets died, but you say that those who obey your teaching will never die! ⁵³Are you greater than our father Abraham, who died? Are you greater than the prophets, who died? Who do you think you are?”

⁵⁴Jesus answered, “If I am merely boasting about myself, it doesn’t count. But it is my Father who says these glorious things about me. You say, ‘He is our God,’ ⁵⁵but you do not even know him. I know him. If I said otherwise, I would be as great a liar as you! But it is true—I know him and obey him.⁵⁶Your ancestor Abraham rejoiced as he looked forward to my coming. He saw it and was glad.”

⁵⁷The people said, “You aren’t even fifty years old. How can you say you have seen Abraham?”

⁵⁸Jesus answered, “The truth is, I existed before Abraham was even born!” ⁵⁹At that point they picked up stones to kill him. But Jesus hid himself from them and left the Temple.
(John 8:31-59, NLT)

The Daily DAVEotional

In 2004, after two consecutive outings in which the rival Yankees had roughed up Red Sox pitcher Pedro Martinez, the future Hall of Famer quipped,

“What can I say? I just tip my hat and call the Yankees my daddy.”

From that moment on, whenever Martinez took the mound against the Bronx Bombers, the fans would chant, “who’s your daddy?” as a means of heckling the oft-dominant hurler.

The phrase, “who’s your daddy?” has come to be associated with dominance over an opponent and is often expressed as a way to mock or ridicule.

In John chapter 8, Jesus doesn’t use the phrase, “who’s your daddy?” with His audience, but He does bring to the attention of His listeners that they are under the ownership and influence of either one of two possible “father” figures.

As was often the case with Jesus, many of those who followed Him never really believed He was God’s Son. Despite the many miracles Jesus performed, His sinless lifestyle and His authoritative teaching, there were many skeptics who were simply looking for a reason to prove that Jesus was the religious charlatan they always had believed Him to be.

This group of people had already made up their minds about Jesus and nothing that Jesus could say or do was going to change their view of Him.

In this chapter, Jesus has another such encounter with the crowds, in which Jesus states that those who truly want to be His disciples will obey His teachings and “the truth will set you free.”

Some in the audience take issue with Jesus’ verbiage, claiming that they have never been slaves and therefore have no need to be set free and also appealing to Abraham as their father.

Jesus’ spiritual message is obviously lost on these folks but Jesus uses this opportunity to explain to his challengers who their true father really is.

According to Jesus, those for whom God is their father are characterized by this one quality – an openness for truth. Those who oppose truth cannot be from God and God cannot be said to be their father because God is a god of truth.

Jesus then explains to his critics that even though they technically are descendants of Abraham, they don’t follow his example, because if they did, they would not be seeking to kill Him simply for telling the truth.

When His enemies continue to resist and argue, Jesus brings the hammer down, telling them that the reason they can’t understand what He’s saying is because they are unable to do so, “For you are the children of your father the Devil, and you love to do the evil things he does.”

This exchange between Jesus and His adversaries underscores a critical question – what happens when a person is confronted with truth that contradicts their current understanding?

For those who claim to be followers of God, Jesus says that they will be open to the truth that confronts them, recognizing that all truth is God’s truth because God is a god of truth.

Those who resist God may employ any number of strategies and tactics to hold on to their preferred narrative. One such tactic is to employ confirmation bias, which is to take in only information and facts that support your preferred narrative while discarding anything that would challenge it. I wrote about a biblical example of confirmation bias here.

Another tactic is to place oneself in an echo chamber, which is the scenario in which a person surrounds themselves only with people who agree with you and who don’t challenge your thinking, even when you’re wrong. I wrote about an Old Testament Echo Chamber here in my previous post.

Jesus doesn’t pull any punches. He states clearly that those who reject the truth that is right in front of them are not God followers. Instead, their father is the devil, who is the father of lies. The reason people reject God and resist truth that plainly points to God is because they are under the influence and authority of Satan, who owns them and is thus, their father!

So, who owns you? Is it God or is it Satan?

Or to put it in today’s vernacular, “Who’s your daddy?”

Did you enjoy this post? I’d love to hear your thoughts! Feel free to like, leave a comment below, and share it with your friends or on social media if you found it helpful or interesting. Your support keeps the conversation going!

Reflection

What are some examples from your own life where you or someone you know has rejected plain truth in order to preserve their own personal viewpoint?

None of us really like to be wrong. So the idea that we might resist new information that would challenge our thinking is not reserved for just some people but is a struggle that any of us can have. What are your typical responses when one of your views is challenged?

How do you handle personal feedback and criticism? What factors make it harder to digest? What circumstances might make it easier to handle?

What steps can you take to ensure that you are one of Jesus’ disciples who obeys Him and is open to truth instead of being one who claims to follow Him but is actually resistant to truth?

Photo from TheLowedown Collection on Topps Bunt21 (a digital card collecting app available in the App Store or Google Play store)

January 9, 2021February 28, 2026

Saul’s Conversion and Confirmation Bias

Acts 9

¹⁷So Ananias went and found Saul. He laid his hands on him and said, “Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus, who appeared to you on the road, has sent me so that you may get your sight back and be filled with the Holy Spirit.” ¹⁸Instantly something like scales fell from Saul’s eyes, and he regained his sight. Then he got up and was baptized. ¹⁹Afterward he ate some food and was strengthened. Saul stayed with the believers in Damascus for a few days. ²⁰And immediately he began preaching about Jesus in the synagogues, saying, “He is indeed the Son of God!” ²¹All who heard him were amazed. “Isn’t this the same man who persecuted Jesus’ followers with such devastation in Jerusalem?” they asked. “And we understand that he came here to arrest them and take them in chains to the leading priests.” ²²Saul’s preaching became more and more powerful, and the Jews in Damascus couldn’t refute his proofs that Jesus was indeed the Messiah. (Acts 9:17-22, NLT)

The Daily DAVEotional

Acts chapter 9 documents a pivotal turning point in the early church detailing the conversion of Saul, the great persecutor of the early church who then became its biggest advocate.

Immediately after his conversion, Paul began preaching the good news that Jesus “is indeed the Son of God.” In verse 22, it says that “the Jews in Damascus couldn’t refute his proofs that Jesus was indeed the Messiah.”

How was Paul able to so quickly go from being a staunch opponent of the faith to its greatest defender, baffling non-believers with his convincing arguments?

The truth is that Paul was already well versed in the Old Testament Scriptures and he knew all of the prophecies regarding the coming Messiah. And yet, he was blind to the information he already had at his disposal. His preconceptions and personal preferences regarding Jesus kept him from seeing the truth that was already evident.

While on the road to Damascus, Saul has an encounter with the risen Jesus and all of his biases and preconceived notions about who Jesus was are wiped away. Ironically, Paul’s encounter with Jesus results in physical blindness at the same time his eyes are finally opened spiritually. Later, Paul receives his sight back as Ananias laid his hands on him and “something like scales fell from Saul’s eyes.”

We all have personal biases and preconceived ideas that keep us from seeing truth that may be evident to others. We call these blind spots. Additionally, many of us may feed our own biases by filtering out facts and evidence that might contradict our opinions and beliefs and considering only information that may support our preferred narrative. This is what’s known as confirmation bias.

Fortunately for Paul, he had a divine encounter with the truth that was so powerful it opened him up to his blindness and set him on a new trajectory. Because he had already been trained and schooled in the Old Testament Scriptures, he was able to quickly pivot his approach and immediately become the foremost apologist in the young New Testament church.

Reflection

In what areas might you be susceptible to blind spots?

What can you do to avoid confirmation bias?

How can you invite Jesus to expose you to truth that you might not be prone to see because it conflicts with your personal biases?

Photo by Hartono Creative Studio on Unsplash