One can usefully approach truth, even if one can't totally, objectively define it. And there is a path that enables that, called the scientific method. And even, less clearly, philosophy.

I don’t think we can ever agree what truth is. Each of us considers our own belief or disbelief to be true. I don’t understand the conception of a path leading to truth....in my mind if there is evidence a thing is true if not it is false.

No I don't agree. Truth is the reality that whatever is, is what's so. Not so obviously, it's also, so what?

To approach is not the same thing as to apprehend or capture. Science is constantly approaching truth. Science is a path. Some religions incorporate a respect for science.

When we are called to the witness stand--something I've actually experienced--we agree to tell the truth. The great problem here is that, no matter how forthright we hope to be, our testimony is subject to our flawed memories, incomplete picture, misperceptions, inexact vocabulary and subjective biases. Truth is supposed to be synonymous with fact, but as we all know, each of us has our own set of filters--the biproducts of our experience and genetic constraints--which predispose each one of us to unique impressions, judgments, abridgments, edits and even revisions. As a result, it would seem a fool's errand to attempt to place the article 'the' in front of truth, for there could, in theory, be 7 billion truths.

I think there are external truths and internal truths

"Truth is that which is; it is nameless. And so, the mind cannot approach it" - Krishnamurti

Is not the truth the truth?
William Shakespeare