Kierkegaard had somewhat contradicting ideas when it comes to truth.

Is the problem that he only had one word for two different concepts?

When he speaks of getting caught by truth, perhaps he has in mind universal and uncomfortable truths. For example, the second law of thermodynamics. You might be an engineer with dreams of building a heat engine that is 90% efficient. You learn the truth :-( With realistic temperature differences you are never going to break 40% efficiency. And maybe that costs you your job because your boss still wants you to design a 90% efficient engine and gets angry when you tell him that it is impossible. The same cast of mind that lets you design a heat engine at all, makes you unable to escape the logic of thermodynamic limit. You are as much caught by the truth as the catcher of it.

But people have their own personal truths. I cannot handle chili heat wave Doritos. If I buy them at all, I eat them greedily and get fat. But that might not be your truth. Enjoy them if you can. Is my truth an "objective truth"? My bathroom scales quantify my weight gain in kilograms; it doesn't get much more objective than that. But one still feels that this truth is too bound to an individual, too contingent, to count as Truth with a capital T. Perhaps Kierkegaard talks of ones own truth in a religious context. What does Mr A believe? Does that inspire Mr B as much? More? Not at all? It is bad to embark on a pilgrimage and give up half way through. It is important for the person planning the journey to know the depth of their own faith. But this too is bound to an individual and not truth with a capital T.

If we did not have the word "truth", but sometimes talked of "the will of the universe" and other times talked of "first person knowledge", might certain contradictions just vanish?