Where was Solomon's Temple
-
Upload
robert-kerson -
Category
Documents
-
view
29 -
download
1
description
Transcript of Where was Solomon's Temple
-
1
Supposed Site of Holy of Holies Solomon Never Knew
By
Robert Kerson 5/23/2011
Discovered by Dr. Leen Ritmeyer, a number of features beneath the Dome of the Rock
building on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, seems to confirm the designated place for the Ark
of the Covenant and the Holy of Holies of Solomons temple or was it? (Ritmeyer, The Quest,
2006)
The validity of his theory becomes questionable if any alternative explanation can explain his
observations. Here is an alternative explanation which can be verified by anyone redrawing over
a copy of Dr. Ritmeyers own diagrams the lines of these figures 1 through 5. (to obtain
Ritmeyer original drawing, see (Ritmeyer, The Quest, 2006) (or images for L. Ritmeyer on
google search)
(See attached Fig. 1 for the following) The Dome of the Rock building has an inner arcaded ring
of 12 pillars and 4 piers holding up a dome (where north is toward the top, and east is to the
right) the same size as the rotunda around the tomb of Christ in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre
to the west. This ring can be made of two squares at right angles to each other (shown as green
lines), and subdivided into 8 halved segments (shown as orange lines) a hidden octagon design
around the rock. There is a depression on the surface of the rock at the center point labeled (c ) in
the figure which is measured from the inner surface of all four piers (shown as dotted lines).
(See Fig. 2 for the following) Here you see a black dotted yellow line marking the natural
western high scarped edge of the rock under the dome of the building. A right angle at point (2)
runs eastward to near a corner of the northeast pier (1a) at the point labeled ( 1). This line is
shown in black with red hatchings. These two right angled lines create the perfect square labeled
(1), (2), (3), (4). The exact center of the square can be located on the rock surface and is labeled
(g ). The size of this square can have been created by the size of the circle from a natural
feature and a single pier on the circumference of the dome or by the size of the controlling
size of the rock and by no other reason. (This square was exactly 20 Cubits per side- the
dimensions of the Holy of Holies.)
See Fig. 3 ) shows one scaled green and one orange line seen in Fig. 1 superimposed on the
previous square. The distance of the orange line measured from the center of the square at point (
g) creates parallel lines of a larger square shown as dashed lines at points labeled (10), (11), (12)
and (13). This shows that the size of the preexisting octagonal building could have
determined the size of the rock and this statement cannot be disproved. (This square was
exactly 32 Cubits per side which was the length of each side of the altar or 20+6+6 Cubits per
side-- the dimensions of the Holy of Holies with side chambers on three sides) Also note the two
green lines intersecting in Fig. 1 and labeled in Fig. 3 as point ( 13) actually falls on the southern
-
2
edge of the rock, and again, by the intersection of three important lines labeled ( 19) falls on the
western edge of the rock, where at both edges the height of the rock is low.
Four further points to consider: point ( g) is directly north of point ( c) and notice how point (16)
on the north south line of the square is tangent to the hole in the rock shown as a small circle. If
you have read my article on the Temples location you will remember the temples axis line runs
from east -- west through point (17). Also notice that both the inner and the larger outer squares
are not centered on point ( c ) but on point ( g ) which puts the squares on the northern part of
the circle hence there is a large area vacant on the southern part of this circle. When we look at
how the area of the rock falls within the circle, it is apparent a large portion occupies the vacant
southern part, also the western and eastern parts, and only the northernmost part is cut off. In fact
the northern scarp is just south of the northern rim of the circle. This shows the actual laying out
of the rock seen today is in complete agreement with the mathematical geometry of the design1.
Fig. 4 shows point (g ) at the center of the square in more detail. Three lines running from three
corners of three piers to four corners of the inner square would have been able to create a
rectangle in the center of the square with dimensions similar to the dimensions of the Ark of the
Covenant. But with no Ark of the Covenant need have been here since these lines would have
needed only strings stretched from preexisting piers or stretched on the initial laying out of the
design before any pier was built. One corner of the rectangle was at the intersection of the red
line with the blue line as shown. Another corner of the rectangle was on the intersection of the
redgreen dashed line as shown. A slight discrepancy in the location of the intersection makes
this rectangle slightly wider than the rectangle shown and would explain an alternative
explanation for what is stated on page (Ritmeyer, The Quest, 2006) The third corner of the
rectangle was on the brown line as shown. Notice how this line, passes through point ( g) which
is also directly north of point (c ) which is shown as a green hatched line. This makes point ( g)
off center of the rectangleagain a better explanation then the one given by Dr. Ritmeyer. For
his explanation that the rectangle once held the Ark of the Covenant cannot explain why the
bottom of the rectangle has a shelf or lower depression on the western part which is larger on the
western end then on the higher eastern end. If the Ark was to have been placed in this rectangular
depression in the rock, the bottom had to be flat and not cut into a shelf. But if the rectangle was
designed according to Fig. 4, the shelf is easily explained. The forth side of the rectangle could
have been laid out from the side of one pillar as shown as a dotted brown line. The distance from
(1) to (2) was 20 Cubits and the distance from (1b) to (2) was slightly less being equal to the
length of the radius of the circle.
Fig. 5. shows another significant variation of string manipulations as all examples are on features
dating from the middle ages. Strings strung from the corners of three piers (shown as two red
lines) and laid across the surface of the rock are the basis of very important layouts. One red line
made the eastern edge of a square identical to the 20 Cubit square seen in Figs. 2 and 3 but
1 See note page. see Note 1 for more discussion..
-
3
whose northern edge touches the rectangle at (31) instead of the rectangle being at the center of
the square. The corners of this square are (29), (22), (25) and (34) where (22) is a point on the
western scarp of the rock (the dotted yellow line). Notice how at the northern edge of the rock
where there is a small northern scarp, two corners of a feature dating from the middle ages and
labeled (21) and (22) make two lines which touch two corners of the rectangle. One line at the
northern edge of the square makes a corner of the rectangle (31). The rock appears to have been
cut on the northern edge to made a nice fit under the dome by Knights Templars during the
middle ages. This is another example of surface modification during this time period. (Ritmeyer,
The Quest, 2006)
(See Fig. 6) The second red line running from (28) to (33) runs exactly where a tall feature on the
corner of the rock (23) is located which dates again from the middle ages. Next to this reliquary a
rectangular notch was cut out of the rock to make a Knights Templar Christian prayer space
during the middle ages. (see quest What is very significant is the fact that this cord has exactly
marked out part of the notch as if this was the method used to mark out that portion of rock to be
cut away during this time period.
Three possibilities exist on every feature seen here: either the feature is older than the laying out
of the octagonal building, or the feature dates from the time of the laying out of the octagonal
building, or the feature is younger then the laying out of the octagonal building. An example is
that the outer 32 Cubit square preserves the location of the western end of Solomons temple as
is Dr. Ritmeyers contention, and cannot be challenged if no other explanation can be shown but
because the size of this square is exactly the same length as a side of an octagon which does exist
around the circumference of the building, this size can be a feature or consequence of the laying
out of this octagonal building. The inner rectangle could have been laid out by stretching cords
over the piers and pillars in the finished structure, hence the rectangle would be then be of a very
late dating. And if the temple was not exactly here, then it had to be located some were else.
Let us, for the sake of discussion, consider the inner rectangle at point (g) in my figures the
center of the Holy of Holies and attempt to show the distances to each edge of the temples inner
court (the Azarah Court ) and then out to the larger 500 Cubit square. We need these common
assumptions: that the eastern edge of the 500 Cubit square is the eastern wall of the temple
mount, and that the northern edge of the square is the northern edge of the present inner
platform, and also that the smaller square within the building measures 20 Cubits per side as
stated in the bible for the size of Holy of Holies. (We need not physically measure out to the
western and southern sides of the square since these can be found by simple subtraction from the
number 500. We also know that the 20 Cubit square can be enlarged by 6 Cubits on each side.)
We know dimensions from the old testament and from the Talmuds statements concerning
dimensions of the temple. Thus we know the Holy of Holies was 20 C square and the Azarah
Court was 187 C from east to west and 135 C from north to south etc. We can fit the center of
the Holy of Holies at point (g) and figure out all the other dimensions and locations. Thus point
(g) must be 67.5 C from the northern and southern edges of the Azarah Court, since this would
-
4
be the center line of the 135 C wide court. The surveyors would have needed only a measuring
cord utilizing the known distance of 20 Cubits (or 32 Cubits {6C+12C+6C= 32 C}) to find the
northern and eastern edges of the Azarah Court, then measuring beyond these edges to the outer
edges of the 500 Cubit square would give the distances from the edges of the Azarah Court to the
edges of the great 500 Cubit square. It would be a simple matter to take these measurements
during the middle ages when the Knights Templars had complete access to the building to pass
the cords through the four open doors of the octagonal building and onto the surrounding
platform. This helps bolster my theory this was done during this period of time and not during
Moslem access which would have put these measurements off limits. The distances from the
Azarah Court to the respective western and southern edges of the great square could have been
surveyed with a cord, but it would have been far easier to just subtract the respective northern
and eastern distances from 500 to find the correct distances. What they must have discovered
where these dimensions:
From northern edge of Azarah to northern edge of 500 Cubit square 115 Cubits
From eastern edge of Azarah to eastern edge of 500 Cubit square 213 Cubits
From southern edge of Azarah to southern edge of 500 Cubit square ---
500C- [115C+ 135C]= 250 Cubits where 135C is north- south width of Azarah
From western edge of Azarah to western edge of 500 Cubit Square
500 C [187C +213C] = 100 Cubits where 187C is east- west length of Azarah2
A number of lengths would have been easily divisible by the a 20 C long cord. These are the
lengths in question: 500C (where 500C/20C = 25 cord lengths) , 250C (where 250C/20C= 12.5
cord lengths) , 100C (where 100C/20C= 5 cord lengths).
These dimensions must have been hard to get, but the fact is someone did obtain them and they
were finally written down in the sixteen century by Tosefot Yom Tov-- a few centuries after the
middle ages ended. These dimensions are correct for the design centered at (g) which most
likely dates from work done during the middle ages but not from the actual Solomons temple.
Why was this ever done? There seems to be a connection between the building and Solomons
Temple as perceived by Knights Templars who believed the building was built upon the site.
This design must have been a very sacred inner mystery of the Knights. (There can be a hidden
Knights Templar cross hidden in the design as well. Can you find it? Hint: the hole in the rock
and the flat area near it are keys to drawing it.)
2 See note page. Note 2 for my distances from the Azarah to the edges of the 500 Cubit square.
-
5
-
6
-
7
-
8
-
9
-
10
-
11
The above article shows how details found on the rock may postdate the octagonal building. But
this article also demonstrates the close connections of features found on the rock and the size and
shape of the octagon which means there are possibilities that an octagonal building dating from
after the destruction of Herods temple and utilizing details of Solomonic age, such as a
depression where the Ark was placed in the Holy of Holies, could have been used to design an
octagonal building. This would likely have been a structure built over the Jewish temple ruins by
The Emperor Hadrian, and then reemerging as first a wooden and then a stone octagonal building
after Moslems captured the site. Also, Moslems could have built a wooden then stone octagonal
building from details found on the rock. It is possible the size of this domb and the great Church
of the Holy Sepulchre dome are of the same size because, when the Church of the Holy
Sepulchre was built, the byzantine builders knew the dimensions and details of the ruined temple
rock site. Both explanations would allow the rock to have been the site of the Ark which
Solomon would have known. The problem is that since the above article is also valid, my
hypothesis that the details of the rock may be of a more resent date puts doubt that the details in
the rock are truly Solomonic.
I believe it is possible details on the rock may actually be pre- Solomonic and dated to the time
of King David as the site where the Ark was made ready before the temple was built. This is
fully discussed and illustrated in my paper on the Jewish Temple and need not be repeated here.
What this paper does emphasize is that details on the rock may not be Solomonic features.
-
12
Note page
1. The details of how this building may have been laid out can be very difficult to actually
describe. The inner circle i.e., the dome was the same size as the dome centered on the
tomb of Christ within the Church of the Holy Sepulcre which predates the Dome of the
Rock by many centuries. The same inner and outer squares seen here could also have
existed in the church but there is nothing to support the idea this space was known by the
architects of the Byzantine church.
It is possible Figure 3 of this article was worked out before figure 2, but it is impossible
for me to tell which came first. Which came first: the larger or the smaller square?
The rock may have been larger at one time, but cut to fit under the dome during the middle
ages which would date figure 3 as being created during the middle ages.
Bibliography (n.d.).
(2006). In L. Ritmeyer, The Quest (pp. 246-253). Jerusalem: The Lamb Foundation.
(2006). In L. Ritmeyer, The Quest (pp. 268-273). Jerusalem: The Lamb Foundation.
(2006). In L. Ritmeyer, The Quest (p. 266). Jerusalem: The lamb foundation.
(2006). In L. Ritmeyer, The Quest (pp. 260-261). Jerusalem: The Lamb foundation.
(2006). In L. Ritmeyer, The Quest (p. 378). Jerusalem: The Lamb Foundation.