Reply #10: First Hand Sources [View All]

[Brentos]

We don't have the original first hand sources, even if they actually existed. Plus, those who would have compiled those first hand accounts had a vested interest in promoting their new religion - they absolutely cannot be said to have been unbiased. Thus, they cannot be legitimately trusted.

Aren't all first hand sources vested in promoting their point of view? And no, we don't have the original scrolls, just copies handed down. But then, what of ancient history do we have that is first-hand, original source, that is unbiased? What of ancient history would you believe? Egyptian writings of the conquests? Accountants doing their totals on ancient shards of pottery? The writings in our history books from 100 years ago as to how savage indians were? I would like to see a standard (or some comparatives), so I know from where I can debate points of historicity.

I think the snarkiness you detect can be expected when one goes off touting their own religious text as the best historical record, with only their own personal religious beliefs to support it.

Nope, snarkiness was felt in the writing style. In this post I don't detect any snarkiness. (With writing, though, that is why we have emoticons and such, it is really easy to read something the wrong way. My apologies if I read the tone incorrectly).

Good discussions!