Does "truth" exist? What about "error?"

[Byfaithalone1]

I've been struggling with these questions. Anyone have a point of view?

1. Is there truth and error?

2. If so, what is "truth" and what is "error?"

3. If we defined "truth" as "anything recorded in the Bible" (and I'm OK with that as a working definition), how would we account for the many ways in which people disagree regarding the things recorded in the Bible?

4. Do people vary in their understanding of "Biblical truth?"

5. If Biblical truth varies according to the eyes of the beholder, is this because (i) Biblical truth doesn't really exist, or (ii) people do not understand Biblical truth?

6. If Person A has the mind of God and possesses a full understanding of "Biblical truth," would we assume that Person B -- who does not share the same understanding as Person A -- does not have the mind of God and does not possess a full understanding of "Biblical truth?"
​

Thanks for your input.

BFA

 

[Byfaithalone1]

In the interest of fairness, I will answer my own questions based on what I currently understand. However, I'm still sorting this through . . . . .

Is there truth and error?

Yes and yes.

If so, what is "truth" and what is "error?"

Not sure if I fully know how to answer this question yet, but I suspect that truth lines up in some way with who God is.

If we defined "truth" as "anything recorded in the Bible" (and I'm OK with that definition), how would we account for the many ways in which people disagree regarding the things recorded in the Bible?

I respond to this by acknowledging that there is none who understands. Though truth exists, we all miss it in one way or another.

Do people vary in their understanding of "Biblical truth?"

Yes.

If Biblical truth varies according to the eyes of the beholder, is this because (i) Biblical truth doesn't really exist, or (ii) people do not understand Biblical truth?

I suspect the latter. I'm not leaning toward the former.

If Person A has the mind of God and possesses a full understanding of "Biblical truth," would we assume that Person B -- who does not share the same understanding as Person A -- does not have the mind of God and does not possess a full understanding of "Biblical truth?"

I'm not sure what "mind of God" and "full understanding" really mean. I've seen these phrases thrown around, but I can't relate to them. I suspect that it was phrases like these that led to denominations, sects, offshoots and cults.

BFA

 

[Norbert L]

1. Is there truth and error?

In the simpliest of forms there is truth and there is error but it can also be relative to a situation, which can become complex. Without getting into the clean unclean meat, the whole veggie vs. meat doctrine by Paul does show there can be some need of tolerance of a different opinion.

2. If so, what is "truth" and what is "error?"

One person's truth is another person's error.

3. If we defined "truth" as "anything recorded in the Bible" (and I'm OK with that as a working definition), how would we account for the many ways in which people disagree regarding the things recorded in the Bible?

Blindness and or pride are two biggies imo.

Blindness. I'm sure most people if they knew they were proposing something in error, they would have a change of mind on the subject.

"which none of the rulers of this age knew; for had they known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory." (1Co 2:8)

Pride. Which is something whereby a person can state a biblical truth which is totally right, however the person may not necessarily be right in his mind.

"... Knowledge puffs up, but love edifies." (1 Cor 1:8)

4. Do people vary in their understanding of "Biblical truth?"

In regards to level of intelligence, most definitely people vary. Otherwise we'd all be biblical Einsteins, but Christ is not quantum physics.

"... the simplicity that is in Christ." (2 Cor 11:3)

However as the rest of the above verse points out, deception with the truth is there. It could be said there will be various other Jesus' that are not "THE" Christ.

5. If Biblical truth varies according to the eyes of the beholder, is this because (i) Biblical truth doesn't really exist, or (ii) people do not understand Biblical truth?

ii. Isaiah's precept upon precept line upon line.

6. If Person A has the mind of God and possesses a full understanding of "Biblical truth," would we assume that Person B -- who does not share the same understanding as Person A -- does not have the mind of God and does not possess a full understanding of "Biblical truth?"

Thanks for that question, it seems to setup an interesting equation.

1) Person A = Jesus Christ has a full understanding of "Biblical truth"

2) Person B does not share the same understanding as Person A

What makes 2 interesting is what motivates Person B to want to share or not share in the same understanding as Person A.

 

[Byfaithalone1]

Norbert, thanks so much for the reply!

In the simpliest of forms there is truth and there is error but it can also be relative to a situation, which can become complex. Without getting into the clean unclean meat, the whole veggie vs. meat doctrine by Paul does show there can be some need of tolerance of a different opinion.

Believers aren't always good at that. I know I have a lot of opportunity for growth in this area.

One person's truth is another person's error.

It does seem to be so.

Blindness and or pride are two biggies imo.

Blindness. I'm sure most people if they knew they were proposing something in error, they would have a change of mind on the subject.

I love this outlook. It assumes that people want to understand. It puts us on a level playing field and opens the door for dialogue.

Pride. Which is something whereby a person can state a biblical truth which is totally right, however the person may not necessarily be right in his mind.

"... Knowledge puffs up, but love edifies." (1 Cor 1:8)

Well put.

In regards to level of intelligence, most definitely people vary. Otherwise we'd all be biblical Einsteins, but Christ is not quantum physics.

Thankfully, our access to God is not dependent upon obtaining the top score on a theology exam.

BFA

 

[Restin]

I've been struggling with these questions. Anyone have a point of view?

1. Is there truth and error?

2. If so, what is "truth" and what is "error?" ....

Thanks for your input.
​

BFA

For simplicity...

1. Do both 'night' and 'day' exist?
2. If so, what is 'night' and what is 'day'...and do we know the difference?

As a confession, I must admit there were times I did not know the difference between 'night' and 'day', 'good' and 'error' for years at the time till God brought my own life very low, and led me through the 'valley of the shadow of death' and gave me to trust in that which I did not see with my earthly, physical eyes, or hear with my natural, earthly ears.

Peace...Restin

 

[Byfaithalone1]

For simplicity...

1. Do both 'night' and 'day' exist?
2. If so, what is 'night' and what is 'day'...and do we know the difference?

As a confession, I must admit there were times I did not know the difference between 'night' and 'day', 'good' and 'error' for years at the time till God brought my own life very low, and led me through the 'valley of the shadow of death' and gave me to trust in that which I did not see with my earthly, physical eyes, or hear with my natural, earthly ears.

Peace...Restin

Restin, thanks for the reply.

However, I'm not sure whether "night and day" is the best comparison. It seems that many folks do a good job of differentiating between the two. When it comes to "truth and error," it seems that there is much disagreement.

BFA

 

[bugkiller]

I've been struggling with these questions. Anyone have a point of view?

1. Is there truth and error?

2. If so, what is "truth" and what is "error?"

3. If we defined "truth" as "anything recorded in the Bible" (and I'm OK with that as a working definition), how would we account for the many ways in which people disagree regarding the things recorded in the Bible?

4. Do people vary in their understanding of "Biblical truth?"

5. If Biblical truth varies according to the eyes of the beholder, is this because (i) Biblical truth doesn't really exist, or (ii) people do not understand Biblical truth?

6. If Person A has the mind of God and possesses a full understanding of "Biblical truth," would we assume that Person B -- who does not share the same understanding as Person A -- does not have the mind of God and does not possess a full understanding of "Biblical truth?"
​

Thanks for your input.

BFA

Without getting into your points (not that they aren't valid) let me answer with a scripture and say that heresy is necessary.1 Corinthians 11:18-19 For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. 19For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.

bugkiller

 

[Restin]

Restin, thanks for the reply.

However, I'm not sure whether "night and day" is the best comparison. It seems that many folks do a good job of differentiating between the two. When it comes to "truth and error," it seems that there is much disagreement.

BFA

Agreed BFA, many people believe they differentiate between 'night and day' quite clearly but disagree when it comes to 'truth and error'. I identify with the two being similar because of my own spiritual journey, but do appreciate your comments and feel for the 'struggle' to understand 'Biblical truth'!

Peace...Restin

 

[Joe67]

Without getting into your points (not that they aren't valid) let me answer with a scripture and say that heresy is necessary.1 Corinthians 11:18-19 For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. 19For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.

bugkiller

bugkiller,

Amen and amen.

It must needs be, but woe be to him by whom it comes.

Joe

 

[Byfaithalone1]

Without getting into your points (not that they aren't valid) let me answer with a scripture and say that heresy is necessary.1 Corinthians 11:18-19 For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. 19For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.

bugkiller

What a helpful thought. Thanks, Bugkiller. I need to chew on this a bit. For me, this is a new way to approach the subject. Now I'm wrestling with how this thought should impact the way I interact with those who view things differently than I do.

BFA

 

[bugkiller]

What a helpful thought. Thanks, Bugkiller. I need to chew on this a bit. For me, this is a new way to approach the subject. Now I'm wrestling with how this thought should impact the way I interact with those who view things differently than I do.

BFA

I hear ya. Communication is very difficult at best, in fact it is the most difficult task mankind faces. It is even harder when people refuse to even accept published definitions and refuse to consider that their definition might be wrong in application. I see meanings forced on something all the time. If a German mispells a word the dictionary is wrong and they are correct. I find that attitude here alot. It does create alot of tension. I to am looking for a solution other than just laying down and being a yes man for the sake of peace. Being a crowd pleaser is demanded. Ireally have found no other way to interact for a pleasing outcome. I do go along where I can. Spiritual matters are a different horse of another color altogether.

Here is another scripture for ya: Titus 3:9-11


9But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.10A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;11Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.

The problem I have is that we can not get these people put out. I feel that we need to stand against heresy. It makes it difficult when you consider our society in general - the no offense politically correct speach that is being demanded with hungry lawyers pentalizing what is correct for those who have the right to be wrong thus enforcing wrong. The penalty for being correct is getting steeper by the minute. Even being nice in trying to help others communicate better is wrong here. The system is still easy to beat if you understand it.

makes us all

bugkiller

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

In most of the reasoning BFA used to answer his own questions I am in agreement but I am curious about what seems to a disconnect between the original idea of is there truth.

At one point you say Biblical truth, what is the difference between Biblical truth and truth?

We would acknowledge that there is such a thing as truth but that from our perspective we also must acknowledge we don't know what that truth is. Now when you say Biblical truth what would that mean, all Biblical adds is that there is a set of documents that we believe contains truth, does that set of documents also contain errors? If it does and quite frankly it does being the work of men we know it has errors because people are error prone and even eye witnesses see different things. So it seems that the inclusion of Biblical truth means that you are defining a truth based upon a set of documents which are not in themselves completely true and written in prose and poetry which can exaggerate or diminish certain things let alone the problem of interpretation what someone says and means. So now we have to search for truth in something that we know has problems and we know we have problems interpreting and then we call that Biblical truth.

Am I alone in seeing a problem there?

 

[bugkiller]

In most of the reasoning BFA used to answer his own questions I am in agreement but I am curious about what seems to a disconnect between the original idea of is there truth.

At one point you say Biblical truth, what is the difference between Biblical truth and truth?

We would acknowledge that there is such a thing as truth but that from our perspective we also must acknowledge we don't know what that truth is. Now when you say Biblical truth what would that mean, all Biblical adds is that there is a set of documents that we believe contains truth, does that set of documents also contain errors? If it does and quite frankly it does being the work of men we know it has errors because people are error prone and even eye witnesses see different things. So it seems that the inclusion of Biblical truth means that you are defining a truth based upon a set of documents which are not in themselves completely true and written in prose and poetry which can exaggerate or diminish certain things let alone the problem of interpretation what someone says and means. So now we have to search for truth in something that we know has problems and we know we have problems interpreting and then we call that Biblical truth.

Am I alone in seeing a problem there?

The bible is a very interesting document indeed. We have many varieties to chose from. Deception is rampant. Some of those variations are due to this very fact - desiring to decieve. This is where the Holy Spirit comes in. More problems exist because there are people claiming to be guided by the same Holy Spirit with opposing views. Sorting it all out is not fun. Understanding what someone is saying helps. Denominations have their own language and some even deviate farther than society to the point that there can be no communication. Religion is funny in the way it affects the mind. Truly one can not be reached unless God opens their mind or draws them. I know that God speaks through individuals. I know that God has used even the wicked and ungodly to speak to me. Even King Saul was numbered among the prophets and yet also consulted the devil. Truly him that hath ears to hear let him hear.

bugkiller

 

[Byfaithalone1]

At one point you say Biblical truth, what is the difference between Biblical truth and truth?

I did not intend to suggest a difference. But perhaps there is a difference. Or perhaps the former is merely a subset of the latter.

Am I alone in seeing a problem there?

Probably not.

BFA

 

[Byfaithalone1]

The bible is a very interesting document indeed. We have many varieties to chose from. Deception is rampant. Some of those variations are due to this very fact - desiring to decieve.

True. Some other variations simply stem from the fact that a person is sincerely wrong. I would imagine that I am sincerely wrong about any number of things and I don't yet know it.

This is where the Holy Spirit comes in. More problems exist because there are people claiming to be guided by the same Holy Spirit with opposing views. Sorting it all out is not fun.

No. Nor am I sure that this is our primarily goal in this life.

Understanding what someone is saying helps.

Agreed. I haven't entered into many discussions in this forum that have become heated. When I have, there has been little understanding about what the other person is saying.

Denominations have their own language and some even deviate farther than society to the point that there can be no communication. Religion is funny in the way it affects the mind. Truly one can not be reached unless God opens their mind or draws them.

This is true regardless of where one finds himself.

I know that God speaks through individuals. I know that God has used even the wicked and ungodly to speak to me.

Me too.

 

[BigRedBus]

We would acknowledge that there is such a thing as truth but that from our perspective we also must acknowledge we don't know what that truth is. Now when you say Biblical truth what would that mean, all Biblical adds is that there is a set of documents that we believe contains truth, does that set of documents also contain errors? If it does and quite frankly it does being the work of men we know it has errors because people are error prone and even eye witnesses see different things. So it seems that the inclusion of Biblical truth means that you are defining a truth based upon a set of documents which are not in themselves completely true and written in prose and poetry which can exaggerate or diminish certain things let alone the problem of interpretation what someone says and means. So now we have to search for truth in something that we know has problems and we know we have problems interpreting and then we call that Biblical truth.

Am I alone in seeing a problem there?

No you are not. Thanks for that post.

 

[Restin]

...Now when you say Biblical truth what would that mean, .... So it seems that the inclusion of Biblical truth means that you are defining a truth based upon a set of documents which are not in themselves completely true and written in prose and poetry which can exaggerate or diminish certain things let alone the problem of interpretation what someone says and means. So now we have to search for truth in something that we know has problems and we know we have problems interpreting and then we call that Biblical truth.

Am I alone in seeing a problem there?

I make no profession of explaining or defining 'Biblical truth' but I can give a personal witness that, in my experience there is such a thing. The glory of God and His creation comes forth in the birth of a child, then family, and I am given to believe that is the work of God and His Son. In this life, family cannot stay together and exist in LOVE apart from the spirit of forgiveness. I cannot explain true 'forgiveness' but I am enabled to feel the emotion of peace that attends it.

Correct...Words are not in themselves completely true. However, the words are a medium, a channel in which the spirit of love is made manifest, without which there is/or would be NO BIBLICAL TRUTH! ....R

 

[Byfaithalone1]

I have little faith in my ability to fully understand what is "truth" and what is "error." Although there may be certain facets of things I understand, I am convinced that there are many things I don't.

I suspect that (i) truth is built on who God is; and (ii) truth is not built on that which I think I understand when I read the Bible. This doesn't negate the value of the Bible; it negates any possibility that I am omniscient. Only God is omniscient.

BFA

 

[StormyOne]

I have little faith in my ability to fully understand what is "truth" and what is "error." Although there may be certain facets of things I understand, I am convinced that there are many things I don't.

I suspect that (i) truth is built on who God is; and (ii) truth is not built on that which I think I understand when I read the Bible. This doesn't negate the value of the Bible; it negates any possibility that I am omniscient. Only God is omniscient.

BFA

As such, our "truth" will always contain some error, and vice versa because we cannot see the bigger picture....

 

[sentipente]

There can be no such thing as error in the education process. Education implies that views will continue to change. Does this mean that the early views are error? How can they be error when they were necessary in order to get to the "truth," which may soon no longer be the truth?