Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: New Evidence for the Site of the Temple in Jerusalem

  1. #1
    Senior Member Colonel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Oslo, Norway
    Thanked: 5785

    New Evidence for the Site of the Temple in Jerusalem

    According to this researcher, the temple was not on the temple mount :

  2. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Colonel For This Useful Post:

    FresnoJoe (09-28-2015), Quest (09-17-2015)

  3. #2
    That's interesting Colonel, apparently others agree also:

    A new and accurate evaluation is essential regarding the site of the former Temples in Jerusalem. Neither the Dome of the Rock near the center of the Haram esh-Sharif in Jerusalem, nor the Al Aqsa Mosque occupying the southern side of the Haram (nor ANY area within the four walls of that Haram) was the real spot in Jerusalem where the holy Temples of God were located. Biblical and literary accounts dogmatically place the site of all the Temples over the Gihon Spring just north of the ancient City of David (Zion) and on the southeastern ridge of Jerusalem. All the present antagonists fighting in Jerusalem over the Temple site are warring over (and for) the wrong place. They need to turn their swords and guns into plowshares.

    -The first source to discover the true site of the Temples in Jerusalem is to read the biblical descriptions about the location of Mount Zion because in the Holy Scriptures the term "Mount Zion" in many contexts is synonymous with the site of the Temples. Any modern map of Jerusalem will correctly indicate the true location of the original Mount Zion (also called the City of David). Zion was situated at the southern end of the southeastern ridge of Jerusalem. This is the section of the city that Josephus (the Jewish historian of the first century) called "the Lower City." The fact that the original "Zion" was described by Josephus as "the Lower City" became a geographical enigma to early scholars since the Bible itself consistently described "Zion" as a high and eminent place. How could something "high" be legitimately called "low"?1 This misunderstanding about the former eminence of the southeast ridge was the first confusion that caused even religious authorities to lose the true site of "Mount Zion" and also the location of the Temples. But historical and biblical evidence reviewed and analyzed between the years 1875 and 1885 C.E.2 finally indicated that the southeast ridge was truly the original Zion.

    It was the indefatigable efforts of W.F.Birch in England with his numerous articles in the Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly over that decade (along with the discovery in 1880 C.E. of the Hezekiahan inscription about the construction of the tunnel from the Gihon Spring to the southern end of the southeast ridge) that finally settled the controversy over the true location of "Zion." It was then determined by the scholarly world that the former designation of the southwest hill in Jerusalem as "Zion" (what was written in Josephus as the "City of David" being located in the "Upper City") was not the correct evaluation for the original site of "Zion." So, the world finally learned (correctly so) that the southeast ridge was the actual site of "Mount Zion" (the true City of David) and that Jerusalem was built in ancient times around and over the Gihon Spring in order to have water from the only spring within a radius of five miles of the city. This correction was a major step in the right direction in restoring true geographical parameters to Jerusalem. Unfortunately, when the scholars properly returned "Mount Zion" to the southeast ridge, the Temple location was not considered an issue in the matter. They continued to accept that somewhere within the Haram esh-Sharif was the Temple site. This was in spite of the fact that many texts in the Holy Scriptures identified "Zion" as equivalent to the "Temple." And, the Bible even indicated that the Temple was abutting to the northern side of the "City of David." This should have been a significant clue to the nineteenth century scholars that the original Temples had to be positioned very near the "City of David." on the southeast ridge, but those historians failed to make the needed correction. They retained the site of the Temple as being about 1000 feet to the north of the Gihon Spring and that it was once located within the confines of the Haram esh-Sharif. This region had become the popular Temple site since the period of the Crusades (by Christian, Muslim and Jewish authorities).3 The actual location of all the Temples, however, was over the Gihon Spring immediately to the north of (and abutting to) the City of David. When the Temples are rightly placed at that site, the biblical and historical accounts about "Mount Zion" being equivalent to the "Temple Mount" consistently make sense.

    The Importance of the Gihon Spring

    The Gihon Spring is the only spring within the city limits of Jerusalem. We have the eyewitness account of a person from Egypt named Aristeas who viewed the Temple in about 285 B.C.E. He stated quite categorically that the Temple was located over an inexhaustible spring that welled up within the interior part of the Temple.4 About 400 years later the Roman historian Tacitus gave another reference that the Temple at Jerusalem had within its precincts a natural spring of water that issued from its interior.5 These two references are describing the Gihon Spring (the sole spring of water in Jerusalem). It was because of the strategic location of this single spring that the original Canaanite cities of "Migdol Edar" and "Jebus" were built over and around that water source before the time of King David. That sole water source was the only reason for the existence of a city being built at that spot.

    The Gihon Spring is located even today at the base of what was called the "Ophel" (a swelling of the earth in the form of a small mountain dome) once situated just to the north and abutting to "Mount Zion" (the City of David). The Ophel Mound was close to the City of David. David soon began to fill in the area between the two summits with dirt and stones (calling it the Millo or "fill in") to make a single high level area on which to build his city and after his death the Temple.6 David's son Solomon completed the "fill in" between the two summits and called that earthen and rock bridge the Millo.7 Solomon then built the Temple on the Ophel Mound directly above the Gihon Spring. This Ophel region became known as a northern extension of "Zion." This made the Temple so close to the City of David (where the citadel or akra was located) that Aristeas said a person could look northward from the top of the City of David and could easily witness all priestly activities within the Temple precincts.8 The area of the Dome of the Rock, however, is 1000 feet north of the original City of David and is much too far away for anyone to look down into the courts of the Temple as Aristeas dogmatically stated one could. Also, there has never been a natural water spring within the Haram esh-Sharif. That fact alone disqualifies the area around the Dome of the Rock from being the site of the former Temples.

    The Ark of the Covenant and the Gihon Spring

    Most people have not noticed an important geographical indication in the Scriptures. When David took the Ark of the Covenant to Jerusalem he made a special tent (tabernacle) for it and pitched it over the Gihon Spring.9 For the next 27 years of David's reign (and for the first eleven years of Solomon – that is, for 38 years) the Ark remained in this particular tent at and over the Gihon Spring. That is where Solomon was crowned king.10 This led the Jewish authorities to demand that all later kings of Judah be crowned at a spring. "Our Rabbis taught: Kings are anointed only by the site of a spring."11 As an example, when Joash was made king, the Scriptures show his crowning was in the Temple itself beside the Altar of Burnt Offering where the laver of Solomon was positioned to provide spring water from the Gihon Spring located underneath the Temple platform.12 So, Joash (like Solomon) was crowned next to the Gihon Spring. Indeed, the Psalms show consistently that the Temples (called "God's Houses") had to have spring waters emerging from their interiors. Notice Psalm 87:1-3 and 7...

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to krystian For This Useful Post:

    FresnoJoe (09-28-2015)

  5. #3
    Super Moderator Quest's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Ashville, Alabama
    Thanked: 3402
    Blog Entries
    So if this is so obvious from scripture and history, why are so many Jews so adamant it's the Mount?

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to Quest For This Useful Post:

    FresnoJoe (09-28-2015)

  7. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by Quest View Post
    So if this is so obvious from scripture and history, why are so many Jews so adamant it's the Mount?
    Tradition? Long held erroneous assumptions?

    It reminds me about the confusion of where Mt Sinai really is located...speaking of which I just posted that amazing documentary of where it is now believed to be located:

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to krystian For This Useful Post:

    FresnoJoe (09-28-2015)

  9. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Quest View Post
    So if this is so obvious from scripture and history, why are so many Jews so adamant it's the Mount?
    I think they just accepted the traditional site and have been praying and fighting over it so long their pride would be severely wounded to say... eh, actually I think we were praying in the wrong place all along... Ooops

    The traditional sites were identified by Constantine's mother sometime around 350 A.D. That's far too long after the fact to be stating these sites as the actual sites... I know I had several issues with sites when I was there, I was thinking it doesn't make any sense that these are the actual site... Golgotha was one, and the upper room was the other...

  10. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to PastorMike For This Useful Post:

    FresnoJoe (09-28-2015), krystian (09-28-2015)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Has your Kia Forte warranty expired? Get a fast online quote from CarWarrantyUS today. Enjoy the open road and leave the repairs to us.