Isn't all history suspect? We can't even get reliable stories 100% of the time for what happens in our present day and age, let alone centuries bygone. How can we apply the scientific method to something in the past? How do we know who are the reliable historians and who are the charlatans? Aren't all historians biased giving their own limited perspective and interpretation of historic events? If I wasn't there to witness the event, then I'm just trusting another's word, and that person could either be lying or misrepresenting what actually took place. Other than being entertained by good stories, what is the practical benefit of studying history since it depends on the word of many who often disagree? Many think the Bible and the account of Jesus Ressurection from the dead as reliable, time-tested history. Does a general concensus determine the accuracy of the history being told?