Places in the Bible Today:



Translated NameSephar
Geo Data KML (for Google Earth)
GeoJSON (for GIS applications)

2 Possible Identifications

  1. Zafar (modern): 35% confidence
    1. artifact from ZafarZafar

  2. Al Baleed (modern): 25% confidence
    1. ruins at Al BaleedAl Baleed

Verses (1)

Gen 10:30

Linked Data Identifiers

Logos FactbookSephar (2007)Sephar
OpenBible.infoa3cae2c (Sephar)
UBS Names Databaseot ID_2083


  1. Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary (1992): Sephar (place)
  2. Baker Illustrated Bible Dictionary (2013): Sephar
  3. Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible (2000): Sephar
  4. Hartley, Genesis (2000): 10:21-31
  5. Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary (2003)
  6. New Bible Dictionary (1996): Sephar
  7. New Interpreter’s Bible Dictionary (2009)
  8. Tyndale Bible Dictionary (2001): Sephar
  9. Waltke and Fredricks, Genesis (2001): 10:30
  10. Wenham, Genesis (1987, 1994): 10:30
  11. Zondervan Encyclopedia of the Bible (2010)

Confidence Trends over Time

This chart indicates how confidence in the identifications is changing over time. Each dot (connected by a dotted line) reflects the confidence of an identification over the preceding ten years (e.g., the 2009 dot reflects scholarship from 2000 to 2009), and the corresponding solid line reflects a best-fit line for the identification. Confidences that cluster near or below 0% indicate low confidence. Because of the small dataset, it's best to use this chart for general trends; if one identification is trending much higher than the others, for example, then you can probably have higher confidence in the identification. This chart only reflects the sources I consulted (listed above), not an exhaustive review of the literature.

Thumbnail Image Credits

P. Yule, riyadh.albalushi


This page attempts to identify all the possible locations where this biblical place could be. The confidence levels add up to less than 100%, indicating that the modern location is uncertain. It's best to think about the confidences in relative rather than absolute terms. Often they reflect different schools of thought, each confident in their identifications.