Can information contained in the Bible be placed in the realm of absolute truth, or does it simply present us with fables and myths?

Truth

1 of 37

by F.J. Foster

• 

Write now Print Invite a writer™ Add to Favorites RSS Feed Contact this writer

When Pontius Pilate asked Jesus "What is truth?," it was already an old question. Philosophers back to Socrates, and probably beyond, had quibbled over its meaning. Today, 2,000 years later, nothing much has changed. Philosophers and the periodic hair-splitter still haggle over it. As philosopher-apologis t Dr. Norman L. Geisler once warned, "If you think you understand something, just let a bunch of philosophers get ahold of it!" So it is with truth.

Truth corresponds to, or accurately describes, whatever it speaks of. What's more, if truth is absolute, it is true for everyone, everywhere, and at all times. The latter clashes openly with the popular notion of "relative truth."

Unlike absolute truth, relative truth says, "Just because it's true for you, doesn't mean it's true for me." That may sound charming, but it melts under close scrutiny, as does its companion claim, "There's no such thing as absolute truth."

For example, suppose a young woman of childbearing age tells me, a male age 62, that she is pregnant. Isn't that a truth claim that is true for her but not for me? No. It's as true for me as it is for her. But how can that be?

Well, before you start writing that article you envision on the front page of a supermarket tabloid, when I say the statement is true for me, I don't mean I'm pregnant (There goes my 15 minutes of fame - and your byline - at the cash register!). You see, the statement doesn't refer to me. It refers to her. Thus, it is just as true for me that she is pregnant, as it is for her, or for anyone else who hears the good news. There is nothing relative about it. She can't be relatively pregnant. Either she is or she isn't. And because she is, she absolutely is.

Now, what of the statement that there is no such thing as absolute truth? It appeared in at least one essay on the myth side of this discussion. Ironically, the statement itself is an absolute truth claim. And because it makes an absolute truth claim to say such statements can't be made, it contradicts and refutes itself. In short, if it's true its false, and if it's false it's false.

Falsehood opposes truth. It misrepresents the referent, showing it to be other than what it really is. If what the pregnant young lady told me were true for her but not for me, then I would be truthful in saying she was not pregnant. But that violates the logical law of non-contradiction, which says she cannot be both pregnant and not-pregnant at the same time, and in the same sense. Thus, my claim is false.

The idea of relative truth, though it sometimes appears well-fitted to our age of tolerance and political correctness, is actually meaningless. Two plus two equals four today in New York, as it will tomorrow in London, and next week in New Delhi. Truth is absolute, because that is in its nature, whether it describes mathematics or anything else.

Christians believe that the Bible, based on the great weight of historical evidence, teaches truth. And because of the nature of truth, those teachings must be absolute. That may make Christians sound arrogant and narrow-minded, but they are not. Truth itself, not those who proclaim it, is narrow.

Christians are compelled to truthfulness by the clear command of Jesus, whose teachings the Bible records. Fables and myths may have their place, but the Bible isn't it.

Learn more about this author, F.J. Foster.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.