I thought I answered your original question in post #10? The fall must be true otherwise there was no need for Christ to die and the entire Bible falls apart. Or, in other words the Bible is just a bunch of fairy tales and Christ would be a lair.

If you really look at all the different religion's in the world there are only 2. If you look at Ephesians 2:8-9 it says that we are saved by God's grace through our faith not by our works. It is a gift from God. That is Biblical Christianity. All other religion's propose a work's based salvation. Which one is true? Grace doesn't cover any theology, grace covers sinner's.

The only way they could find the truth is to study God's word.

It seems according to Lee's absolutist universal theory of truth that all people must necessarily apprehend God in the same way, otherwise this leaves room for subjective error of perceptions in finding him. I'm not sure how this is possible. Mustn't we leave room for some sort of variance in the ways in which we find God?



Care to elaborate on this one, Paul?

There is definable proof other than the tradition. Cannot be proven or disproved by either side of the debate.

Meant there is no definable proof at this timeother than the tradition.


Absolute truth = a perspective to each individual only.
Why would this definition suddenly bother you?
Your definition alarms me! The definition you have given is actually relativism not universal truth.


Really? This is what the definition I was given through prayer and meditation from the Holy Spirit. How is this relativism and not Universal Truth? Because some secular or non secular scholar says so? I hear this a lot from people discussing the Truth. If the Holy Spirit is given the power to bring the Truth and Understanding to mankind, are you saying It doesn't know? 

Still a good question.  I was referring not to scientific proof alone but to writings, carvings, manuscripts that can prove the age and veracity of the "truth". At this time in history we assume that the original version of the Fall was not written or captured. So it had to be passed down as oral history. Then it was finally written down. The proof is the oral traditions not written.

There is definable proof other than the tradition. Cannot be proven or disproved by either side of the debate.

Lee - valid points made, yet still not getting to the original question. If you take on God's Grace as your basis of truth, how is the question of biblical stories directly related?

Interesting that you only have two views of theology. God's grace and Human Achievement. Does Grace cover all theology?  Need clarification.

With the overwhelming number of different denominations of God's Grace, preaching the Gospel differently, how does an unbeliever know which one is the absolute truth. I have read the Word of God personally, studied it, prayed on it, and I don't find a single denomination that speaks the absolute truth that I get when I read it.

Historical truths are different from scientific truths. With scientific truths we can discover new evidence for particular theories by means of induction.

The question still remains, what would discoverable historical proof be for the fall & other biblical stories?

Anxiety, I agree with your definition as written. However, the Fall was before and objective documentation can be located. Since there is no "discoverable proof" known as of yet, does the lack of evidence passed on through the ages be considered false?

Or, does it stay valid till we have the capability to discern without any question the validity or not.  ex. The earth was the center of the universe, the world was flat, the sun orbited around the earth all are "truths" that were held by the scholars and scientists of their day. Until  the technology became available to discern a new "truth".

The original question, "Must the stories of the fall or other biblical stories be True?" is a question of historical truth. Historical truths are events that happened in the past that can be verified as having happened. Though the standards and process of verification might vary from person to person, the events of the past do not.

In this way it manner, it both relative and objective (situated in the reality of the past).

I guess I'm not understanding your definition of truth? Only one can actually be true. There are only two religions in the world. There is the religion of human achievement and the religion of divine grace. Only one can be true!

It is beneficial to teach the truth. This is not my particular truth this is God's truth which is absolute. Timothy commanded certain people in Ephesus not to teach false doctrine any longer. He commanded them he didn't cooperate with them. We are commanded as Christians to preach the gospel and correct false doctrines not to be politcally correct as to not offend any one. 

Your definition alarms me! The definition you have given is actually relativism not universal truth.

It's really simple! There are two types of people in the world. You have believers and non-believers. There is only one way that is workable and that is Jesus Christ.

The Holy Spirit will testify to which one is truth.

That is true for those of the Christian faith. Yet the originators of the same story have a slightly different viewpoint.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/758-adam The Jewish view concerning Adam's sin is best expressed by Ammi (Shab. 55a, based upon Ezek. xviii. 20): "No man dies without a sin of his own. Accordingly, all the pious, being permitted to behold the Shekinah (glory of God) before their death, reproach Adam (as they pass him by at the gate) for having brought death upon them; to which he replies: 'I died with but one sin, but you have committed many: on account of these you have died; not on my account'" (Tan., Ḥuḳḳat, 16).

THe Koran teaches: http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/1196/ Islam rejects the Christian concept of original sin and the notion that all humans are born sinners due to the actions of Adam.  God says in the Quran:“And no bearer of burdens shall bear another’s burden.” (Quran 35:18) Every human being is responsible for his or her actions and is born pure and free from sin.  Adam and Eve committed a mistake, they repented sincerely and God in His infinite wisdom forgave them. God tested Adam so that he could learn and gain experience.  In this way God prepared Adam for his role on earth as a caretaker and a Prophet of God.  From this experience, Adam learned the great lesson that Satan is cunning, ungrateful and the avowed enemy of mankind.  Adam, Eve and their descendants learned that Satan caused their expulsion from heaven.  Obedience to God and enmity towards Satan is the only path back to Heaven.

Three different "truths". Each is valid for that religion, all share a central theme, that Adam screwed up a good thing, each has a different consequence going forward.

To go forward in a dialog with the other two, is it beneficial to emphatically state that they are wrong and your particular truth is right? Or to recognize a central theme as a starting point to open dialogue and find an atmosphere of cooperation for the benefit of all.

Absolute truth = a perspective to each individual only.

Why would this definition suddenly bother you?

Is it ego, satan influence on man, man's rebelliousness nature, lack of humility, or stubbornness that there may be other ideas not the same but workable, maybe an affront to your own sense of "absolute truth".  What bothers us is a mirror of what we don't like in ourselves being reflected back to us for clarity. Just asking for contemplative use.

If three different religions all based on the same words and thoughts cannot find an "absolute truth" that would be the same for each of them, then how do we know what it is?  They all use the "word of God" as their reference. Two of them use the exact wording. Which is right? The originators, or the interpreters, which also then brings in the other religion as it is an interpretation of the original ?