Practically every single book in The Bible contains at least some historical detail, much of which has been verified by external sources, in many cases where it was thought to be in error. So, the idea that they 'seem' to contain history is a factually incorrect presupposition. They don't just seem to contain history but they contain a real and verified historical record, much of which is recorded by the actual participants and eyewitnesses of the events.
In terms of the most historically specific books the following would be some.
Genesis -the early history of the earth, the nations and the Genesis of the Jewish nation in particular.
Exodus- the history of the Jewish nation in Egypt and of its departing to head to Canaan.
Joshua- the history of the entry into Canaan, the conquest and subsequent land division.
Judges- the history of Israel in the time immediately succeeding Joshua before the time of the kings.
1 & 2 Samuel - the history of Israel in transition from the time of the judges into the beginning of the time of the Kings.
1 & 2 Kings and 1 &2 Chronicles - the history of Israel in the time of the kings.
Acts - the history of the beginning and development of the early Christian church.
Let's take historical to mean "Telling what happened". Acts is definitely historical, as are Matthew, Mark and Luke. John is much more problematic - perhaps a interpretation of history? None of the rest seem to qualify.
Herodotus, ancient Greek historian, has often been called the Father of History because his works are the earliest surviving books that seem to present history in roughly the form we think of it today.
The Bible contains verses about not understanding why things happen to remind believers that God's ways are higher than human understanding. It encourages trust in God's plan and wisdom, even when circumstances seem confusing or difficult to comprehend.
Not everyone in Christianity does think it is important. Some will say there are 12 eras and others 15. In any event, these 'divisions' in the history of the 'reign of man' seem to help many with understanding biblical history. See related link below:
There doesn't seem to be anyone in the Bible whose name translates as keeper.
'his science books in french' I mean come on it's not that hard, you seem to be able to type it.
Bible names for women seem to stay on the single given name; so I suppose the Bible name for Ruth would be the same - simply Ruth.
The bible would seem to incidate that Paul did, Acts 16:15.
It was the Cherokee Trail of Tears. It was just the most famous of many trails of tears endured by several tribes. History books only seem to remember the Cherokee one.
The pejorative term "Bible basher" is sometimes used to describe people who seem to want to talk about the Bible at imappropriate times in order to convince others to become Christians.
Depends on what is meant by "wrong." The Bible contains numerous contradictions (cf. Bert Ehrman, Jesus Interrupted) as well as stories that seem at odds with the idea of a loving, gracious God. One thing to keep in mind is that the Bible is not one book but numerous separate books, written by various authors over a period of several hundred years - authors whose viewpoints conflict with each other.
The Bible was written in many different locations. Some of them are: Moab, Canaan, Israel, Babylon, Rome, Macedonia.First of all, it depends on which of the many, many versions (various translations into English, German, Italian, Portuguese, etc as well as bible for which denomination within Christianity).Secondly, the Bible was written by many people over a long period of time and a slow editing process. This is why some stories seem to contradict each other - it's because each writer believed in a different version of how things went down. So it's impossible to trace with certainty where the Bible was written.The first printed Bible was made in Germany, though.