Today I learned that textbooks are secondary sources along with Ph.D. papers, and Wikipedia. A primary source is only one that was written at that time, anything else is just opinion. I also learned that there are a ton of different ways that scholars approach the literature of the bible to analyze its writings. These different approaches are called criticisms and to name just a few there is source criticism, historical criticism, form criticism, and a lot more. It really fascinates me how many different fields can look at the same text and pull different things out of it. My thinking has been changed in that it is okay to look into the bible, ask about sources, do some research, and piece together how it became what it is today. The difference between the past and history is still confusing to me. I just don't understand the point the speaker is trying to get across. Our own history, experiences, and contexts greatly affect our view of the past. We can connect with characters who have feelings similar to ours, we see a text through a different lense than the person next to us is looking through because we have lived different lives. I don't think that the study and writing of history can ever really be objective, humans have too many complicated emotions and biases.