Excellent! Very eye appealing and full of valuable information. Can be used for school or referance. We highly recommend this book.

Very very helpful to any serious student of the Bible. The Bible is written from an Eastern Civ background. This helps one to understand sometimes confusing verses of where the verse is coming from.

I only read portions of the book. While it contains interesting information, it's difficult to judge how much of it to believe.

A complete lack of documentation means the reader must take everything on the author's say-so (the only citations are from Scripture, and as another reviewer pointed out, they don't always support the author's points or are open to sundry interpretations).

Additionally, the author's authority is questionable. He seems to explain things from his own rationale, rather the researching the issue. My favorite example is that Joseph inherited because Rachel "was always to be" Jacob's first wife. Ridiculous. Joseph inherited because the rightful heir, Reuben, lost his birthright for sleeping with one of his father's concubines (Gen. 35:22; 49:3-4).

If the author hasn't done his research, then pretty much everything he says is suspect. Read with discernment.

I do not write may reviews but I feel compelled to comment about this book. I started reading this book and comparing what the author was saying with the passages in the Bible. In most of the cases, it fell on interpretation, or were blantantly wrong, and in the best of cases, the author would give his personal interpretation.

A book about the Bible needs to be unbiased, in other words, it allows the reader to come to his or her own conclusions. I could not read pass chapter one because I felt the information was incorrect and misleading.

For example, the author talks about the garment used on a marriage ceremony and he cites Isaiah 9:6 which talks about the coming of Christ. Where is the similarity?

Another example, he is explaining how the first born gets double share of the inheritance because of his birthright as a first born, and then he compares is with Elisha asking for a double portion of the spirit of Eliah. Again, where the similarity? Furthermore, in biblical times, it was a custom to call Father a prophet or a teacher. By reading this book, you may conclude that Eliah was the father of Elisha. This is not true.

One last example, the author talks about how that in a tent, they have a section or department for women, which is correct, but then he goes to say that because Sisera went to the women's section in Heber's tent, Jael killed him. That is incorrect. First, the Bible does not say where Sisera was. Second, Jabel killed Sisera for political reasons and thridly and most importantly, it was a prophecy given by Deborah (Judges 4:9).

All these examples were gathered from the first few pages.

Finally, was version of Bible did the author used? I would read this book very carefully since contains information that is inaccurate.

I must rate this book 3 stars for two reasons.

1. As noted by another reviewer, the book has no bibliography and makes no references to any other text besides the Bible.
2. The author frequently slips in his own theology and views, often blatantly wrong.

This book describes the "manners and customs" of the Bible times, and as such is a work of history and should include some references to sources. There are frequent references to Bible passages pertaining to the topic being discussed. However, more often then not, the book is offering no additional information or insights than could be obtained from reading that passage in the Bible. This indicates to me that there may have been limited use of archaeological data and non-Biblical texts.

This lack of sources prevents the reader from verifying claims made by the author. In the words of Philip Schaff "Every historian rests on the shoulders of his predecessors." and "Only he should always carefully indicate his authorities and verify facts, dates, and quotations. A want of accuracy is fatal to the reputation of a historical work."

Worse than a lack of sources for this work is the erroneous theology of the author that he inserts, often without even indicating when the "truth" he presents is controversial and other views exist.

Even worse, is when he attempts explain away a miracle in ways that are ridiculous. For example, the author uses 2 Kings 2:19-22 to support his claim that salt was believed to have healing properties. Take a moment and read those verses and ask yourself; did they throw salt in the spring because they thought it would purify the water? No! A better explanation is that the use of salt, which would normally ruin the spring, was proof that God worked a miracle.

Another example is when the author suggests that in John 21:4-6 Jesus' suggestion to cast the net on the other side of the boat was based on having a better vantage point of where the fish were. Reread this passage and ask your self if a man standing on the beach at day break could see into the water about 100 yards (200 cubits) out. Only after the miraculous catch of fish did the disciple recognize the work of Jesus and realize that the man on the beach was Jesus. Proof that they recognized a miracle and not just a kind tip from a passing stranger.

Some are not as bad (theologically) as others but are just as wrong. The author makes the claim that it was a _sin_ to eat alone based on Job 31:17. This claim is just absurd! The point Job was making is that he had always shared what he had. Yes, we should share that which we have, but you may eat alone without worry of sinning.

The author also likes to slip in his opinions even when it does not have anything to do with the subject matter of this book. For example, under "Government and Society" he adds a box that claims that on the basis of 1 Samuel 17 and 2 Samuel:19 that David was called "Elhanan" prior to his coronation. While this is one possible view, the author neglects to mention any other possibilities or the evidence found in 1 Chron. 20:5.

The list just goes on and on. The poison of his words creeps into this book when you least expect it. While talking about the ways that Israel's prophets spoke to the people, the author claims telepathy was used based on 2 Kings 6:12.

Many other examples exist, too many to list here.

The book is not all bad, much of the content appears to be correct and reasonable. The many illustrations are very valuable. Though some seems to be added to boost the illustration count and are duplicates or add no additional information.

The book is of good quality with thick paper and sewn binding. It should stand up to a beating.

In short, if you have good discernment you may find this book helpful. But if not, this book may mislead you in many ways. I suggest purchasing a book written by an author interested in presenting unbiased history and not his personal views.

I must rate this book 3 stars for two reasons.

1. As noted by another reviewer, the book has no bibliography and makes no references to any other text besides the Bible.
2. The author frequently slips in his own theology and views, often blatantly wrong.

This book describes the "manners and customs" of the Bible times, and as such is a work of history and should include some references to sources. There are frequent references to Bible passages pertaining to the topic being discussed. However, more often then not, the book is offering no additional information or insights than could be obtained from reading that passage in the Bible. This indicates to me that there may have been limited use of archaeological data and non-Biblical texts.

This lack of sources prevents the reader from verifying claims made by the author. In the words of Philip Schaff "Every historian rests on the shoulders of his predecessors." and "Only he should always carefully indicate his authorities and verify facts, dates, and quotations. A want of accuracy is fatal to the reputation of a historical work."

Worse than a lack of sources for this work is the erroneous theology of the author that he inserts, often without even indicating when the "truth" he presents is controversial and other views exist.

Even worse, is when he attempts explain away a miracle in ways that are ridiculous. For example, the author uses 2 Kings 2:19-22 to support his claim that salt was believed to have healing properties. Take a moment and read those verses and ask yourself; did they throw salt in the spring because they thought it would purify the water? No! A better explanation is that the use of salt, which would normally ruin the spring, was proof that God worked a miracle.

Another example is when the author suggests that in John 21:4-6 Jesus' suggestion to cast the net on the other side of the boat was based on having a better vantage point of where the fish were. Reread this passage and ask your self if a man standing on the beach at day break could see into the water about 100 yards (200 cubits) out. Only after the miraculous catch of fish did the disciple recognize the work of Jesus and realize that the man on the beach was Jesus. Proof that they recognized a miracle and not just a kind tip from a passing stranger.

Some are not as bad (theologically) as others but are just as wrong. The author makes the claim that it was a _sin_ to eat alone based on Job 31:17. This claim is just absurd! The point Job was making is that he had always shared what he had. Yes, we should share that which we have, but you may eat alone without worry of sinning.

The author also likes to slip in his opinions even when it does not have anything to do with the subject matter of this book. For example, under "Government and Society" he adds a box that claims that on the basis of 1 Samuel 17 and 2 Samuel:19 that David was called "Elhanan" prior to his coronation. While this is one possible view, the author neglects to mention any other possibilities or the evidence found in 1 Chron. 20:5.

The list just goes on and on. The poison of his words creeps into this book when you least expect it. While talking about the ways that Israel's prophets spoke to the people, the author claims telepathy was used based on 2 Kings 6:12.

Many other examples exist, too many to list here.

The book is not all bad, much of the content appears to be correct and reasonable. The many illustrations are very valuable. Though some seems to be added to boost the illustration count and are duplicates or add no additional information.

The book is of good quality with thick paper and sewn binding. It should stand up to a beating.

In short, if you have good discernment you may find this book helpful. But if not, this book may mislead you in many ways. I suggest purchasing a book written by an author interested in presenting unbiased history and not his personal views.

I must rate this book 3 stars for two reasons.

1. As noted by another reviewer, the book has no bibliography and makes no references to any other text besides the Bible.
2. The author frequently slips in his own theology and views, often blatantly wrong.

This book describes the "manners and customs" of the Bible times, and as such is a work of history and should include some references to sources. There are frequent references to Bible passages pertaining to the topic being discussed. However, more often then not, the book is offering no additional information or insights than could be obtained from reading that passage in the Bible. This indicates to me that there may have been limited use of archaeological data and non-Biblical texts.

This lack of sources prevents the reader from verifying claims made by the author. In the words of Philip Schaff "Every historian rests on the shoulders of his predecessors." and "Only he should always carefully indicate his authorities and verify facts, dates, and quotations. A want of accuracy is fatal to the reputation of a historical work."

Worse than a lack of sources for this work is the erroneous theology of the author that he inserts, often without even indicating when the "truth" he presents is controversial and other views exist.

Even worse, is when he attempts explain away a miracle in ways that are ridiculous. For example, the author uses 2 Kings 2:19-22 to support his claim that salt was believed to have healing properties. Take a moment and read those verses and ask yourself; did they throw salt in the spring because they thought it would purify the water? No! A better explanation is that the use of salt, which would normally ruin the spring, was proof that God worked a miracle.

Another example is when the author suggests that in John 21:4-6 Jesus' suggestion to cast the net on the other side of the boat was based on having a better vantage point of where the fish were. Reread this passage and ask your self if a man standing on the beach at day break could see into the water about 100 yards (200 cubits) out. Only after the miraculous catch of fish did the disciple recognize the work of Jesus and realize that the man on the beach was Jesus. Proof that they recognized a miracle and not just a kind tip from a passing stranger.

Some are not as bad (theologically) as others but are just as wrong. The author makes the claim that it was a _sin_ to eat alone based on Job 31:17. This claim is just absurd! The point Job was making is that he had always shared what he had. Yes, we should share that which we have, but you may eat alone without worry of sinning.

The author also likes to slip in his opinions even when it does not have anything to do with the subject matter of this book. For example, under "Government and Society" he adds a box that claims that on the basis of 1 Samuel 17 and 2 Samuel:19 that David was called "Elhanan" prior to his coronation. While this is one possible view, the author neglects to mention any other possibilities or the evidence found in 1 Chron. 20:5.

The list just goes on and on. The poison of his words creeps into this book when you least expect it. While talking about the ways that Israel's prophets spoke to the people, the author claims telepathy was used based on 2 Kings 6:12.

Many other examples exist, too many to list here.

The book is not all bad, much of the content appears to be correct and reasonable. The many illustrations are very valuable. Though some seems to be added to boost the illustration count and are duplicates or add no additional information.

The book is of good quality with thick paper and sewn binding. It should stand up to a beating.

In short, if you have good discernment you may find this book helpful. But if not, this book may mislead you in many ways. I suggest purchasing a book written by an author interested in presenting unbiased history and not his personal views.

The book is very useful in my studies of the Bible. Is a great book for preachers and teachers.

I used this book to teach a introductory class on Bible manners and customs. It proved to be an excellent book for my students. I prefer the full version of this book instead of the student version.

I have never lived in the Middle East nor am I 2000 years old, so I have had to imagine much of the bible context -- until now. This book is clearly written and illustrated, so it gives the reader an idea what the family life (part 1) and institutions and customs (part 2) were like. It has made the bible much more understandable and vivid to me, and has heightened my connection to God's word and to him.

Pretty much a gem for all serious Bible students. Provides good, solid ground for Bible customs, which will, in turn, help reveal the meaning of some of the choices of words or actions taken by people throughout the Bible. Ever wonder about Jesus' parable of the Prodigal Son? These and many questions answered in this book, great for apologetical work as well.

Let me give my reservations first:

1. The book has no bibliography and no notes at all.

This means that when the author says, for instance, that the "synagogue itself seems to have come into existence during the Exile", he gives you absolutely no way to evaluate what "seems to" means. Probably? Almost certainly? The preponderance of scholarly opinion? Does "seems to" mean that the institution might pre-date the Exile, or be more recent? No way to tell, and you're completely on your own for follow-up research.

2. The author often gives one explanation for a phenomenon without explaining that there are others.

For example, the author states, without qualification, that "Maccabeus means 'the hammer'". He neglects to explain that "hammer" is only one explanation for Judah the Maccabee's famously cryptic epithet. It might mean the "commander", or be a family name, or a statement of the uniqueness of God, or (my favorite) maybe it's better translated as "hammerhead" -- Israel describes most of its heroes as physically beautiful, but, strikingly, not Judah. Maybe he was an ugly cuss. Again, as there are no notes, you have no way to do further research on your own.

3. I don't know about the author's frequent use of the very broad term "Bible times." The impression the book gives is that most of the cultural institutions it describes were identical for thousands of years (and may still exist among, for instance, the Bedouin), with the exception of the rule of the Romans. Maybe this is true, but the phrase "Bible times" makes me a bit nervous.

Nevertheless, I recommend this book. Its many wonderful advantages include the following:

1. Profuse illustration. Photos, maps, schematic diagrams, charts and lovely artists' reconstructions really help you get an idea of the institutions and customs described.

2. Highly readable prose, accessible to any adult reader and even older children.

3. The book is divided into thematic chapters each of which ends with a subsection entitled "Now look at your bible," in which the author shows how information from the chapter clarifies specific biblical passages.

4. Similarly, the book does contain a Scriptural Index as well as a topical Index, allowing it to function very well as a reference text.