Ok, so you might wonder what I mean by my title.

Well, in the world of scholarship, history, religious studies, etc (all of which can be said to be part of TES Lore), you will often get different creation myths, God(s), and histories.

Is there a certain amount of disagreement between in-game texts in TES games which reflects, say, history/religion from an Imperial perspective, vs Dunmar accounts of history/religion, vs Nords vs Bretons, vs Redguards, etc? Also, sometimes even within a particular cultural context, you will have different 'schools of thought' favored by different scholars which are in disagreement. Do you get that type of thing going on with the texts?

I haven't yet spent much time reading the in-game texts, but I've been collecting books with an eye towards reading them "when I get around to it" (I did read some texts that seemed like they might have particularly important clues, hints, or background information, and to get some sense of the 'history' of the world, names of places, races, etc, but need to do more).

Edit: I should mention that, I'm already aware that Mancor Camoran has his own personal view of 'history' and 'religion', but outside of that, do you run across this in the games?

Short answer: Yes.

Long answer: Yessssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss
ssssssssssss.

Short answer, it's about all we do.

Long answer, http://www.imperial-library.info/mwbooks/monomyth.shtml, http://www.imperial-library.info/mwbooks/anuad.shtml. Going into the extended lore, we've got http://www.imperial-library.info/obscure_text/viveccyrus.shtml, http://www.imperial-library.info/obscure_text/tsaesci.shtml, and finally, everyone's favorite, http://www.imperial-library.info/obscure_text/aldudagga.shtml. Aldudagga for short.

These are just off the top of my head.

I don't get it... Is your question if there are conflicts with Tamrielic history and earth history????

No - he's surprised to find conflicting versions of history amongst the various books available in-game. An example would be the different creation myths coming from different cultures.

This absence of clear cut universal truth is uncommon in games, were the background is usually presented in a single version, presumably exact.

The only game comprable to ES in the diversity of opinions in its lore was Shadowbane. Great lore there. Terrible game, though.

Despite the differences among the various creation myths and so on, there are commonalities. I like what was once speculated on this forum: that there are core truths because some part of mortals was a witness to the events, and the knowledge of the myths' truth has been passed down unconsciously in each generation.

But yes, a significant aspect of the TES world is that there will always be uncertainty about historical events and different, slanted interpretations of them by Nirn's mortals.

Yes. Example: The War of Betony by Vulper Newgate v.s. The War of Betony by Fav'te.

Many of the in-game books belong to warring or opposed factions who have different views on the same situation.

A lot of it is based on perception, yours and the fictional groups in the games'. There are differing myths and theories on events because each group perceives the events in question a little differently. Also, this isn't anything like earth history, there is no delineation between "myth" and "history" because in this case myth is history, and that everyone has a different way of describing it only makes it more convoluted.

Even on earth, the delineation between myth and history is primarily a question of whether the source is known or not. "History" can be old propaganda, and "Myth" often turns out to have elements of historical truth. Perfect examples of the latter include the Illiad, which was assumed to be just an old myth turned into a play until someone managed to use clues in Homer's work to discover the actual site Troy was located. Another example is the Old Testament, widely assumed to be a bunch of made up stories, but which archaeological work increasingly supports in many particulars. (I'm not saying all myths are essentially true, merely that in many cases, what we call "myth" is actually a form of history for which even the context and the source has been lost, but the story has remained.)

The fact that no one can agree on anything and that there's no objective unbiased account of anything is half the fun of Elder Scrolls lore. To me, it's the major fake world that comes close to being as much fun to study as the real world. Seriously. (Plus it has the added bonus of being somewhere that I can completely make stuff up and not feel like a horrible horrible person, due to the fact what I make up is just as real as what is already there. Which is to say, not at all.)
Even within historical accounts, even within direct accounts from eyewitnesses there's always going to be biases, and those biases are awesome. That's what's lovely. That's what makes us human. Or elvish or Argonian or Daedric or whatever. Shut up.

For chrissakes. Even the Elder Scrolls themselves can't agree on what's going to happen until it actually does.

My point was that you can separate the purely fantastical parts of myths from historical truth on earth. In the Elder Scrolls this is not the case.

Not all cultures do this in real life.

This is true. Some people still believe in one mythology or another and incorporate it into actual human history.

That doesn't mean a particular mythology actually happened, though, because belief does not equate to fact. In the Elder Scrolls series, the mythology does factually occur, but some people have differing views of said mythology.

Thats what I'm getting at.