YES. The bible is a primary source (from that time) and it is written by someone (even if it is the words of god, it doesn't necessarily mean that no one attempted to change it). Therefore, it contains one aspect or point of view. I personally dont agree because I have no other sources to compare.... Lets take Babylon as an example. It is mentioned in the bible, we have MANY archaeological evidences, books from that time and books from this age. So, I know for sure that Babylonians existed and it is not an exaggerated tribe or sumthing.
I hope u get my point cuz I cant put this into words right now... just cant... but I am not questioning the Accuracy of the bible. I am questioning the bias. Yes, the bias. I cannot rely on one opinion as a sufficient evidence REGARDLESS of it's accuracy. I need a babylonian evidence, some greek documents, assyrian or whatever to compare these different biases and sum up a balanced history. I want to see different biases to really feel their power and place myself in their position at that time. I know this because, primary sources (written at that time) are eyewitness which means that it has strong emotions more than secondary (written after the incident based on several primary sources). I want MY own conclusion that is sumed up from the bible, greek document, babylonian/assyrian/sumerian paper or tablets.