John Locke Intersecting with Himself

I found the two excerpts from Locke to both be very interesting, especially when the ideas of both are compared. The first excerpt centers around a theme of knowledge acquisition being dependent on external forces and the second excerpt centers around a theme of the power and value of personal labor. One may read these two separate pieces and be convinced that they were written by different people because of the conflicting ideas.

The first one seems to deny people the possibility to create truths for their own lives because truths are "not innate, but acquired... by external things." Locke does acknowledge the incredible critical thinking capacity of humans when information is gathered, stored, analyzed, recalled, and compared with other knowledge. However, the whole reason this process is started, according to him, is due to external forces and not from forces within the person, thereby taking the power of one's life out of the hands of the person. This differs from the view of the second excerpt in which Locke states that a person's body is rightfully theirs, and using that power of property, people can turn unowned items into one's personal property. This idea puts all the power in the people and does not seem to fit with the previous notion that people innately know no truths. For Locke, in his second excerpt, is in fact stating a truth that he has decided upon, which, if we cycle that back into his first excerpt, means that Locke came to this truth because of external factors which he analyzed.

If humans were born with no absolute knowledge of any truths and all values and knowledge exist due to outside forces, how could these outside forces have began? There have to be some sort of value set innate in people, even if their values differ - there has to be some sort of set of them. Is this a modern idea?