I think there are various kinds of information that need to be handled differently, and presented differently in teaching and discussing. There are historical facts that are not stated in the Bible but are well established and documented, which complement the Biblical account, and I have no compunction about stating them as facts during Bible study or teaching. Saying that the Babylonian captivity began in 605 B.C. or that Sennacherib's annals affirm the Assyrian siege of Jerusalem in Hezekiah's time would be examples of that kind of information.

That again, there is information like that found in ancient sources such as Josephus or 1 Maccabees or some of the Dead Sea Scrolls sectarian documents. That kind of information generally needs to be presented as "Josephus reported that..." rather than known fact. These kinds of sources of a lot of good history, useful information, cultural insights, and so forth, but need to be cited as information from a single particular source, with the limitations that implies.

Yet another kind of information is that found in later sources such as commentaries and histories written by people far removed from the events. Again, that kind of information needs to be presented with appropriate citation of source in most cases, since it usually deals with interpretation rather than fact and knowing the source allows the hearer to give proper weight to the information, or at least come closer to doing so. The vague "my commentary says" isn't really what I mean by citation, but a specific reference to specific source if it's something meant to be swallowed.

I've heard more than a few non-facts presented as though "that's the way it was." We do all need to be careful to present fact as fact, and interpretation as interpretation, opinion as opinion, and speculation as speculation, whether our own or someone else's that we regurgitate. Of course that requires the discernment to know which is which, but we can learn to discern...

Prov 1:5 let the wise listen and add to their learning,
and let the discerning get guidance--

Prov 14:6 The mocker seeks wisdom and finds none,
but knowledge comes easily to the discerning.

Proverbs 15:14 The discerning heart seeks knowledge,
but the mouth of a fool feeds on folly.

Proverbs 18:15 The heart of the discerning acquires knowledge;
the ears of the wise seek it out.

Phil 1:9-11 And this is my prayer: that your love may abound more and more in knowledge and depth of insight, so that you may be able to discern what is best and may be pure and blameless until the day of Christ, 11filled with the fruit of righteousness that comes through Jesus Christ-to the glory and praise of God.
NIV

What are some of your opinions about how much of the historical writings (not considered to be inspired, nor included in the bible) we should cling to, especially in the teaching of the word. Many teachers are careful to point out that it's not inspired so take it with a grain of salt, while others just pepper their teachings with all sorts of information from such writings and modern commentaries as if it were all biblical fact, weaving it in among scripture and never offering any explanation whatsoever. When someone asks them where they got that information, hearing them explain it is like watching someone try to put all the Rummikub tiles back the way they were before their failed attempt at a complicated rearrangement.

I personally think it's fine to take some of that information and form somewhat of a context for certain scriptures with it, but to publicly teach it all together as if it's inspired word seems dangerous and irresponsible.