Originally Posted by Kyure
The Bible is a historical account, so yes, there is proven truth in the Bible; Tower of Babel, Noah's Ark, Flood Myth etc. It is important that you don't cite the ENTIRE bible as a primary or secondary source however, since each chapter could be either or.
You know that whether a source is primary or secondary is just a matter of when it was written in comparison to the actual event (at the time of vs. some time afterwards) right?
Good morning sweet princess
Originally Posted by Zelda
You know that whether a source is primary or secondary is just a matter of when it was written in comparison to the actual event (at the time of vs. some time afterwards) right?
Please go google the definitions of what a primary and secondary source are please. The time from which they were written is not at all the reason.
Originally Posted by Kyure
Please go google the definitions of what a primary and secondary source are please. The time from which they were written is not at all the reason.
It is. You're wrong. Primary sources are first-hand accounts or artifacts. Secondary sources are not, and based thus on primary sources.
Originally Posted by Ele
You're wrong. Primary sources are first-hand accounts or artifacts. Secondary sources are not, and based thus on primary sources.
This (the correct definition) is not the same as:
Originally Posted by Zelda
Whether a source is primary or secondary is just a matter of when it was written in comparison to the actual event (at the time of vs. some time afterwards) right?
<Faint> the rules have been stated quite clearly 3 times now from high staff
