HomeReviewsEth CEPHER Review


Eth CEPHER Review — 5 Comments

  1. Thank you for writing this out. I have several family members that bought the book and swallowed it hook, line, and sinker.
    One issue that you brought up but didn’t fully explain was their addition of non-canonical books like Enoch and Jasher. It’s my understanding, for example, that there are two books of Jasher that are certainly not from the period of time referenced in the Old Testament, but rather later creations that were popular in the early centuries AD (and BC?). Do you suppose that the publisher/editor of this book knows that we have no book of Jasher from antiquity? I would not personally buy this. Thanks again for your review.

    • Oops, it’s Enoch that was popular (though fictional) and Jasher that has two writings, both fictional

      • I agree with you, Jasher is most definitely fictional and of much later origin than anything referenced in Scripture. As for Enoch, there is a lot of debate on this. I probably doesn’t go back any further than the second century BCE. In any case, these don’t belong with the Tanakh and Apocryphal writings.

  2. “The name Israel is rendered as Yasharel. This transliteration is not supported by any Hebrew scholarship that I was able to find.”
    I only skimmed your article (will read everything some other day) but I did find someone else from “Israel Biblical Studies” say Israel can be rendered the same way

    So far I’ve been looking for reviews against the cepher but many points against it turn out to not hold when I research it. It is an expensive version of the bible so I will take my time listening to both sides.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>