What is Truth?

Truth does not become false because the world rejects it. Neither does falsehood become truth because the world embraces it.

We live in a world where personal conviction is often confused with objective truth, where persuasive voices can outweigh evidence and where even Scripture can be used to defend contradictory teachings. But how do we determine what is true, who has the authority to define it and what happens when truth becomes inconvenient?

When Truth Becomes a Matter of Opinion

Is there such a thing as truth that does not change?

We have become accustomed to hearing expressions such as "my truth", "your truth" and "living your truth". In everyday conversation, these phrases often mean that people should be permitted to describe their experiences honestly, without having those experiences dismissed.

There is nothing inherently wrong with acknowledging that different people experience life differently. Two witnesses may remember an incident from different perspectives. Two people may respond emotionally to the same circumstances in completely different ways. But an important distinction must be made between personal experience and objective fact.

If two people disagree about whether a particular event occurred, their sincerity does not establish that both accounts are factually correct. If a doctor diagnoses a disease incorrectly, the strength of the doctor's conviction cannot make the diagnosis accurate. If a financial adviser promises guaranteed returns from an investment that does not exist, the confidence of the adviser or investor cannot create genuine profits. The same principle applies to religious claims.

Two religious systems may contain overlapping moral teachings, but when they make directly contradictory claims about the identity of God, the person of Jesus Christ or the means of salvation, those contradictions cannot simply be dismissed by declaring that every belief is equally true.

This is not an argument that every question has a simple answer. Some subjects involve incomplete evidence, complex interpretation or legitimate uncertainty. It is an argument that truth must be distinguished from preference, perception and persuasion.

The danger of making ourselves the final authority

When personal conviction becomes the highest authority, correction becomes increasingly difficult. A person who believes that something is true merely because it feels right may interpret every challenge as an attack upon personal identity. Evidence that contradicts the belief becomes unwelcome. The messenger may be rejected before the message has been examined. This is not a problem confined to secular society.

Christians can behave in precisely the same way. We can become attached to a particular preacher, denomination, prophetic interpretation or inherited tradition and refuse to examine whether the teaching is genuinely supported by Scripture. The question, therefore, is not simply whether the world has abandoned truth. It is whether we ourselves are willing to submit our beliefs to examination.

God's Standard for Truth

Truth begins with the character of God

The Bible presents God as truthful, faithful and incapable of deceit. Numbers 23:19 contrasts God's faithfulness with the unreliability of human beings. Titus 1:2 describes God as one who cannot lie. Psalms 119:160 declares the truth of God's Word. These passages establish something fundamental to biblical Christianity.

God is not presented as an authority who invents arbitrary rules to preserve His position. His commands and promises flow from His character. 

• If God is truthful, His revelation cannot legitimately be used to defend deliberate falsehood.
• If God is just, His name cannot be invoked to justify corruption.
• If God is faithful, His promises cannot be manipulated into guarantees He never made.

This places a considerable responsibility upon those who claim to teach in His name. A preacher who deliberately misrepresents Scripture is not merely making an academic error. He is claiming divine authority for something God may never have said.

Jesus Christ - The truth made known

In John 14:6, Jesus declares: "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."

This is one of the most exclusive claims in the New Testament. Jesus does not present Himself as one spiritual teacher among many, each offering an equally valid route to God. He identifies Himself as the way to the Father.

For Christians, the truth is therefore inseparable from the person, teachings, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. But the claim must also be understood responsibly. The Christian cannot demand that a non-Christian accept the authority of Scripture without explaining why the Christian believes that authority is justified.

This is where apologetics, historical investigation and reasoned discussion become important. The Christian faith makes claims about events in history, particularly the life, crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. These claims deserve serious examination rather than automatic acceptance or dismissal.

When Scripture Is Used to Defend Falsehood

A Bible verse does not automatically make a teaching biblical

One of the most disturbing aspects of spiritual deception is that Scripture itself can become an instrument of manipulation. A preacher may quote a passage correctly while ignoring the surrounding verses. A promise given in a particular historical setting may be presented as an unconditional guarantee to every modern believer.

A command may be isolated from the wider teaching of Scripture. A difficult passage may be explained in a way that conveniently supports the preacher's personal authority or financial interests. The danger is especially great when audiences are discouraged from examining the text for themselves.

Consider the temptation of Jesus in Matthew 4. The devil quotes Psalm 91 in an attempt to persuade Jesus to throw Himself from the pinnacle of the temple. Jesus answers by citing Deuteronomy 6:16, refusing to test God. The lesson is not merely that the devil knows Scripture. It is that biblical words can be employed in ways that contradict biblical meaning.

The difference between interpretation and invention

Christians have disagreed for centuries over certain passages. Differences concerning baptism, church government, spiritual gifts or the chronology of end-times events do not automatically establish that one side is deliberately deceiving the other.

But there is a difference between a responsible interpretation that can be argued from the text and a teaching that depends upon inventing information, suppressing context or refusing examination. The proper response is neither blind acceptance nor immediate condemnation. It is careful investigation.

Who wrote the passage? To whom was it addressed? What was the historical setting? What do the surrounding verses say? How does the proposed interpretation fit within the wider testimony of Scripture? A teacher who claims that questioning his interpretation is equivalent to questioning God has already confused human authority with divine authority.

Truth and Deception in the Real World

Case study 1: Theranos - when confidence replaced verification

Theranos promised to revolutionise blood testing. Its founder, Elizabeth Holmes, promoted technology that was represented to investors as capable of providing innovative, accurate and affordable testing. The company attracted substantial investment and public attention.

Yet the promised technology had not been perfected, and Holmes was convicted of fraud-related offences involving investors. A 2025 US Department of Health and Human Services decision summarised the false representations and the resulting conviction. HHS.gov

The case illustrates an important principle: a compelling story, an impressive public image and the confidence of influential supporters do not establish that a claim is true. The correct questions concern evidence, independent verification and accountability. The same principle applies when someone claims to have discovered a revolutionary archaeological artefact, developed a miraculous cure or received a revelation that supposedly cannot be questioned.

Case study 2: An artificial voice and a false political message

In January 2024, voters in New Hampshire received robocalls using an AI-generated imitation of President Joe Biden's voice, encouraging them not to vote in the presidential primary. The US Federal Communications Commission subsequently imposed a $6 million penalty against the political consultant responsible for the illegal robocall campaign. docs.fcc.gov

The voice sounded like a recognisable public figure. The message was not authentic. This example raises a question that will become increasingly important: if our eyes and ears can be deceived by convincing synthetic media, what standards of verification should we apply before accepting or sharing information?

For Christians, this also touches upon the biblical prohibition against bearing false witness. Technology has changed the means by which false testimony can be produced. It has not changed the moral responsibility to speak truthfully.

What these cases have in common

The Theranos case involved exaggerated and false claims about technological capability. The robocall case involved impersonation and fabricated political communication. They are different events with different motives and consequences. But both demonstrate why evidence must take precedence over appearances.

That principle applies to religious claims as well. A crowded auditorium, an emotional testimony or a respected religious title does not independently establish the truth of what is being taught.

God's Truth and Our Imperfect Understanding

Can a person sincerely believe the Bible and still be wrong?   Yes.

This admission is essential if the website is to retain credibility. Scripture is regarded by Christians as authoritative, but no human reader possesses perfect understanding of every passage. We approach the Bible with inherited beliefs, cultural assumptions, personal experiences and varying degrees of knowledge.

Sometimes these influences help us understand a passage. At other times, they can distort our interpretation.

Acts 17:11 commends the Bereans for examining the Scriptures to determine whether Paul's teaching was correct. Their examination was not portrayed as a failure to respect spiritual authority. It was commended. The implication is significant. If the apostolic message was examined against Scripture, modern teachers cannot reasonably demand immunity from examination.

The responsibility to correct mistakes

There is a serious difference between discovering that we were mistaken and deliberately continuing to promote a claim after its falsehood has been established.

• The first calls for humility and correction.
• The second raises questions of honesty and accountability.
• This applies to religious ministries as much as to governments, corporations or the media.

A ministry that publishes an inaccurate quotation, misidentifies an archaeological discovery or incorrectly attributes a statement to a public figure should correct the record. Defending an error merely because it supports a preferred theological or political conclusion is itself a betrayal of truth.

Beyond the Church: What If You Do Not Believe in God?

You do not need to be a Christian to recognise the danger of deception

Perhaps you do not believe that the Bible is inspired by God. Perhaps you regard religion as a human invention, have been harmed by religious leaders or believe that spiritual truth is found through personal experience rather than established doctrine.

You may even regard the Christian claim that Jesus is the only way to God as unreasonable or offensive. You are still welcome to examine the questions raised here. Consider something simple. If someone deliberately deceives you about the safety of a medicine, the condition of a vehicle or the terms of a financial agreement, you would probably regard that deception as wrong.

Why?

Because you recognise that truth matters, that evidence has value and that other people should not manipulate your decisions through falsehood. These convictions provide common ground for discussion. Christianity goes further by teaching that truth and moral responsibility are ultimately grounded in the character of God. You may disagree with that explanation. But disagreement does not prevent you from examining it.

An invitation to examine Jesus' claim

Jesus' declaration in John 14:6 is not merely a statement about moral behaviour. It is a claim about His identity and humanity's relationship with God. The question is whether that claim is true.

Rather than asking you to accept it simply because a religious website says so, we invite you to investigate the historical accounts of Jesus, the evidence concerning His life and resurrection, and the teachings recorded in the Gospels. You do not have to pretend to believe before you begin asking questions.

But neither should you reject the claims without examining them.

Why we believe the Bible is true

Examine Your Own Understanding

Before continuing, consider these questions.

1. Have I ever accepted a claim primarily because I trusted the person making it?
2. When evidence challenges a belief I hold strongly, do I investigate or immediately become defensive?
3. Do I apply the same standards of evidence to people I agree with and people I oppose?
4. If I discovered that a religious teaching I had followed for years was unsupported by Scripture, would I be willing to reconsider it?
5. Am I more concerned about being right, or about discovering what is true?

These questions are not intended to produce guilt for its own sake. They are intended to encourage honest reflection. Why not use our Online Study Journal App - simply register, and capture all your thoughts, ideas, responses and Scriptures in your own private Journal Cockpit?!

Sign in to My Bible Journey App

Where Does This Leave Us?

Truth must be pursued, not merely claimed

We began by asking whether truth is something each individual can define independently. The evidence examined in this study demonstrates why sincerity, confidence, popularity and authority cannot serve as reliable substitutes for verification. The Christian faith goes further by identifying God as the ultimate source of truth and Jesus Christ as the truth made known.

That conviction does not release Christians from the responsibility to think, examine evidence or acknowledge mistakes. It increases that responsibility.

If we claim to follow the God of truth, we must:

• refuse deliberate falsehood even when the lie would benefit our cause.
• be willing to confront false teaching, but also willing to correct ourselves.
• distinguish genuine disagreement from deception, and we must never manipulate others into accepting a conclusion that cannot be responsibly defended.

The challenge is not simply to recognise falsehood in the world. It is to become people who genuinely love the truth.

Continue the Investigation

• The First Lie - How deception entered human history.
• When Man Deceives Himself - Why we believe what we want to believe.
• Test the Spirits - How Scripture instructs believers to examine religious claims.
• Another Jesus, Another Gospel - When religious language conceals a different message.
• Artificial Intelligence and Synthetic Reality - When convincing evidence can be manufactured.

Further Scripture

Psalms 119:160 | Proverbs 12:22 | Proverbs 18:13 | Proverbs 18:17 | John 8:31-36 | John 14:6 | John 17:17 | Acts 17:11 | 2 Timothy 3:16-17

Sign in to My Bible Journey App