Is Biblical History Important?

[JonC]

When I was in seminary I took an extra class (a heavy load) to get ahead. I chose Introduction to the Old Testament because I thought that, having an undergraduate degree in the Christian Religion, it would be easy.

Little did I know was that "introduction" was studying Old Testament Biblical History - that is, the various peoples, religions, and cultures in which the Old Testament was written.

It was very interesting. But it was not easy.


Biblical History is the history that surrounds and contributes to the events in the Bible. It is not studying the Bible itself, although this is a part.

So is Biblical History important?

 

[JonC]

My answer is "it depends".

Is it important to salvation? No. The Bible is Redemptive History and is sufficient.

Is it important to understanding many Biblical events? Absolutely.


For example, without understanding Israel in relation to the Seleucid Empire one can't understand the Hasmonean period. Without understanding the Hasmonean period one can't understand exactly what the Jewish expectation was for a messiah or even fully grasp the fears of the Sanhedrin. One certainly could not understand differences in ceremonial practices between the Pharisees and Sadducees, or the deep animosity that existed between these two sects.

 

[37818]

The Discovery at Nineveh.

Video about 29 1/2 Minutes.

Matthew 12:39-41.

 

[Deacon]

For example, without understanding Israel in relation to the Seleucid Empire one can't understand the Hasmonean period. Without understanding the Hasmonean period one can't understand exactly what the Jewish expectation was for a messiah or even fully grasp the fears of the Sanhedrin. One certainly could not understand differences in ceremonial practices between the Pharisees and Sadducees, or the deep animosity that existed between these two sects.

I enjoy teaching from the Old Testament Scriptures.
Almost everyday I explore the wisdom within.

Understanding some basic history of the intertestamental period certainly gives the student of Scripture a greater clarity as we interpret both the Old and New Testament.

The Later Prophets are filled with historical material that displays how God was working during the years before Christ’s incarnation. The “Four Hundred Silent Years” idea is destroyed with a fuller knowledge of history.

Rob

 

[37818]

What can be a difficult chronological study of the number of years of the reign of kings. The mixture of accession and non-accenssion dating being used.

The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings - Wikipedia

 

[canadyjd]

When I was in seminary I took an extra class (a heavy load) to get ahead. I chose Introduction to the Old Testament because I thought that, having an undergraduate degree in the Christian Religion, it would be easy.

Little did I know was that "introduction" was studying Old Testament Biblical History - that is, the various peoples, religions, and cultures in which the Old Testament was written.

It was very interesting. But it was not easy.


Biblical History is the history that surrounds and contributes to the events in the Bible. It is not studying the Bible itself, although this is a part.

So is Biblical History important?

It is important to God. That’s why it’s preserved in scripture. So yes, it should be important to believers

peace to you

 

[JonC]

I bet it gets really wacky before the

It is important to God. That’s why it’s preserved in scripture. So yes, it should be important to believers

peace to you

I think it is important to understand Scripture (the details of Scripture).

An example would be Jesus' illustration that essentually called the Samaritan woman a "dog". Without context this would appear rude.

 

[37818]

An example would be Jesus' illustration that essentually called the Samaritan woman a "dog". Without context this would appear rude.

Actually a "little dog." The KJV translaters didn't translate it as such. I think that detail is note worthy.

 

[JonC]

Actually a "little dog." The KJV translaters didn't translate it as such. I think that detail is note worthy.

A pet, but yep.

I don't think it'd go very well if we called any woman a little dog. We'd probably get more than a little slap in the face.

 

[37818]

A pet, but yep.

I don't think it'd go very well if we called any woman a little dog. We'd probably get more than a little slap in the face.

Yup. A different time and a different culture set.

 

[canadyjd]

Actually a "little dog." The KJV translaters didn't translate it as such. I think that detail is note worthy.

I think Jesus used the term “dog” and the woman referred to herself as “little dog”(puppy) getting crumbs from the table. She invoked sympathy and humility and faith in one sentence.

Very interesting conversation.

peace to you

 

[37818]

I think Jesus used the term “dog” . . . .

Jesus in our verse 26 used "little dog."