Bible Study Ophel - The Location of King Solomon's Temple

[Eulalio Eguia]

It is known that the Red Heifer altar is located at the "top" of the Mount of Olives, and is due East of the Temple.

I believe the Red Heifer altar was built on a threshing floor in the Mount of Olives, similar to the Temple of Solomon which was built on the threshing floor of Araunah.

The sedimentary rock area of the Mount of Olives is an ideal place for threshing floors. So I looked for the highest elevation in this area of the Mount of Olives to locate where I believe the Red Heifer altar was built.

This is how I determined that Ophel (which is due West of the Red Heifer altar) is the location of King Solomon's Temple.

Please watch the following video to know more, and Thanks!

 

[Eugene]

Hi Brother Eulalio Eguia, Welcome to our Christian fellowship. I look at your proofs, and my ignorance of much history denies me the capacity to distinguish truth in these matters. I would ask that if you were mistaken on things formally undiscovered, would it make any difference in your walk with God? I ask this because I've never had the interest to know if Noah's Ark was at some certain place, or where Peter was really buried for that fact. If I were to discover some artifact proving certain portions of scripture, would it increase my faith? Thanks.

 

[tim-from-pa]

Very nice presentation video. Yes, there are others who believe in the Ophel location of the temple, and I've been commenting here and there about that too. I don't think it's on the Dome of the Rock, and for that matter, if the Jews can be convinced of the real location, they already have control of that area and could build right away.

Since you are into the theory of the location of the temple, I assume that you are also familiar with Norma Robertson's book at www.templemountlocation.com . She places it in the same general area as you did, maybe slightly north, but still in the Ophel area at least half off the mount. She did mention the tombs of the Jewish people and specifically the priests in alignment with the entrance to the Holy Place. In addition, she mentioned the same red heifer bridge, and used the southern ruins to establish the walls and gates of the temple. There were many other proofs she had, so she attacked the location issue from many angles and was well thought out and researched. Here's a picture of her idea where it was located.

 

[Eulalio Eguia]

Hi Brother Eulalio Eguia, Welcome to our Christian fellowship. I look at your proofs, and my ignorance of much history denies me the capacity to distinguish truth in these matters. I would ask that if you were mistaken on things formally undiscovered, would it make any difference in your walk with God? I ask this because I've never had the interest to know if Noah's Ark was at some certain place, or where Peter was really buried for that fact. If I were to discover some artifact proving certain portions of scripture, would it increase my faith? Thanks.

I have another video "The True Location of Golgotha or Calvary", which shows that the location of the Red Heifer altar is where Christ was sacrificed. And this Red Heifer altar is due East of Ophel, the location of King Solomon's Temple.

Why these two locations (the Temple of Solomon, and the Red Heifer altar, which is where Christ was crucified) are important to God, only God knows. But my point is, if these 2 spots on earth are so important to God, shouldn't we give these spots the same reverence as well?

 

[Eulalio Eguia]

Very nice presentation video. Yes, there are others who believe in the Ophel location of the temple, and I've been commenting here and there about that too. I don't think it's on the Dome of the Rock, and for that matter, if the Jews can be convinced of the real location, they already have control of that area and could build right away.

Since you are into the theory of the location of the temple, I assume that you are also familiar with Norma Robertson's book at www.templemountlocation.com . She places it in the same general area as you did, maybe slightly north, but still in the Ophel area at least half off the mount. She did mention the tombs of the Jewish people and specifically the priests in alignment with the entrance to the Holy Place. In addition, she mentioned the same red heifer bridge, and used the southern ruins to establish the walls and gates of the temple. There were many other proofs she had, so she attacked the location issue from many angles and was well thought out and researched. Here's a picture of her idea where it was located.

Yes, I am aware of Norma's theory, and in fact, she was the inspiration for my starting my own research on where Solomon's Temple is located.

Her location and mine are separated by only a few meters.

But my location explains why the gate located at the southern wall of the Temple Mount (which I labeled the inner Huldah gate) is located so close to the gate located at the Robinson's arch (which I labeled the Kiponus gate). When one gate in this vicinity would have sufficed.

My diagram of Herod's Temple clearly shows you why: The gate located at Robinson's arch is used exclusively by Gentiles to enter the Court of the Gentiles, while the gate located at the Southern wall of the Temple Mount is used exclusively by Jews. Norma placed the temple close to Robinson's arch, implying that that gate was used by Jews as well.

Also, my location explains why the Red Heifer altar was setup due East of Ophel, and not due East of the Al-Aqsa mosque (which is Norma's theory). The point in the Mount of Olives that is due East of Ophel is the highest point in the sedimentary rock area of the Mount of Olives.

Finally, since Norma's theory places the Temple in the vicinity of the Al-Aqsa mosque, it will still be nearly impossible for the Jews to build the third Temple there. Whereas in my theory where the Temple is placed outside the Temple Mount and further south of the Al-Aqsa mosque, there is virtually nothing that can stop the Jews from rebuilding the Temple anytime they choose to do so.

 

[Eugene]

I have another video "The True Location of Golgotha or Calvary", which shows that the location of the Red Heifer altar is where Christ was sacrificed. And this Red Heifer altar is due East of Ophel, the location of King Solomon's Temple.

Why these two locations (the Temple of Solomon, and the Red Heifer altar, which is where Christ was crucified) are important to God, only God knows. But my point is, if these 2 spots on earth are so important to God, shouldn't we give these spots the same reverence as well?

Forgive me if I don't think that way because to me for myself I will not be searching for the nails that held Jesus on the cross for instance. When we come to loving our Lord, it is what He did voluntarily; there was nothing that could hold Him if He didn't want it to. E.g., Joh 18:11 Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?

I am interested though as to what you may believe to be important in knowing such things. Is it to prove evidence of the credibility of the word of God in some manner? Will it convince one sinner to receive Christ as their Savior? Thanks again.

 

[Eulalio Eguia]

Forgive me if I don't think that way because to me for myself I will not be searching for the nails that held Jesus on the cross for instance. When we come to loving our Lord, it is what He did voluntarily; there was nothing that could hold Him if He didn't want it to. E.g., Joh 18:11 Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?

I am interested though as to what you may believe to be important in knowing such things. Is it to prove evidence of the credibility of the word of God in some manner? Will it convince one sinner to receive Christ as their Savior? Thanks again.

Hi Eugene, many thanks for your warm welcome.
I understand your point of view, however, there are others with a different point of view as well.
Why do some people visit the graves of their loved ones? Does it help them remember and edify the memories of their dearly departed?
Why do some people visit Israel and visit Biblical sites there? Is it for them to strengthen their faith, and have a more personal experience with their Biblical beliefs?
User tim-from-pa's reason why he thinks this subject is important is "if the Jews can be convinced of the real location, they already have control of that area and could build right away".

 

[tim-from-pa]

Yes, I am aware of Norma's theory, and in fact, she was the inspiration for my starting my own research on where Solomon's Temple is located.

Her location and mine are separated by only a few meters.

But my location explains why the gate located at the southern wall of the Temple Mount (which I labeled the inner Huldah gate) is located so close to the gate located at the Robinson's arch (which I labeled the Kiponus gate). When one gate in this vicinity would have sufficed.

My diagram of Herod's Temple clearly shows you why: The gate located at Robinson's arch is used exclusively by Gentiles to enter the Court of the Gentiles, while the gate located at the Southern wall of the Temple Mount is used exclusively by Jews. Norma placed the temple close to Robinson's arch, implying that that gate was used by Jews as well.

Also, my location explains why the Red Heifer altar was setup due East of Ophel, and not due East of the Al-Aqsa mosque (which is Norma's theory). The point in the Mount of Olives that is due East of Ophel is the highest point in the sedimentary rock area of the Mount of Olives.

Yes, brilliant. I think between you and Norma the details may have to be ironed out, but I have a gut feeling (as well as looking at the objective evidence) that you and/or she is on the right track. This is why I mentioned Norma Robertson's theory because your layout as a whole and hers are laid out in the same basic location, and I thought of her theory right away.

One question I have to ask and it has to do with the temple aqueducts. I know that the Romans used sealed aqueducts under valleys which used a syphoning effect (although like our drain traps they tended to get clogged ). The reason I'm asking is that assuming the water was brought in by Wilson's arch, then the temple would have to be south of it if the aqueducts were open channels since the Dome of the Rock is at a higher elevation than Wilson's arch. However, if the aqueducts were sealed, water can flow uphill if the source is at a higher level. I've always imagined aqueducts as being open, like a man-made stream, but I did not realize that in some cases they knew enough to actually run them in a closed system. I was wondering which types they used in Herod's day? Or for that matter Solomon? Because Herod's temple was built at the same site that I am aware of. Again, if they were open, then it had to be located south of Wilson's arch unless the water came from elsewhere.

 

[Eugene]

Hi Eugene, many thanks for your warm welcome.
I understand your point of view, however, there are others with a different point of view as well.
Why do some people visit the graves of their loved ones? Does it help them remember and edify the memories of their dearly departed?
Why do some people visit Israel and visit Biblical sites there? Is it for them to strengthen their faith, and have a more personal experience with their Biblical beliefs?
User tim-from-pa's reason why he thinks this subject is important is "if the Jews can be convinced of the real location, they already have control of that area and could build right away".

Dear Brother Eulalio Eguia, there are many that believe that Israel must have a temple built again to begin their daily offerings and other feasts; that is not so, and hopefully I can show you scripture to satisfy any opposition.

The temple was not rebuilt yet. Ezra 3:4-6 They kept also the feast of tabernacles, as it is written, and offered the daily burnt offerings by number, according to the custom, as the duty of every day required; 5 And afterward offered the continual burnt offering, both of the new moons, and of all the set feasts of the LORD that were consecrated, and of every one that willingly offered a freewill offering unto the LORD. 6 From the first day of the seventh month began they to offer burnt offerings unto the LORD. But the foundation of the temple of the LORD was not yet laid.

What does Israel sacrifice today? Without a temple, presently the Jews have taken the scripture of Hosea 14:2 as sacrifice. ". . we render the calves of our lips." This is much like Hebrews 13:15. "By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his name."

Just one last thought, and that is Daniel 12:11 And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days. This determines that the daily sacrifice is being made thirty days prior to the twelve hundred and sixty days tribulation to come before being taken from them.

 

[Eulalio Eguia]

Yes, brilliant. I think between you and Norma the details may have to be ironed out, but I have a gut feeling (as well as looking at the objective evidence) that you and/or she is on the right track. This is why I mentioned Norma Robertson's theory because your layout as a whole and hers are laid out in the same basic location, and I thought of her theory right away.

One question I have to ask and it has to do with the temple aqueducts. I know that the Romans used sealed aqueducts under valleys which used a syphoning effect (although like our drain traps they tended to get clogged ). The reason I'm asking is that assuming the water was brought in by Wilson's arch, then the temple would have to be south of it if the aqueducts were open channels since the Dome of the Rock is at a higher elevation than Wilson's arch. However, if the aqueducts were sealed, water can flow uphill if the source is at a higher level. I've always imagined aqueducts as being open, like a man-made stream, but I did not realize that in some cases they knew enough to actually run them in a closed system. I was wondering which types they used in Herod's day? Or for that matter Solomon? Because Herod's temple was built at the same site that I am aware of. Again, if they were open, then it had to be located south of Wilson's arch unless the water came from elsewhere.

You mentioned aqueducts. It is known that the aqueducts pass through Wilson's arch via a bridge and a dam. And this dam waters the vicinity inside the Temple Mount.

(Numbered areas indicate location of visible remains illustrated here: 1 – Reference segment at Mishkenot Sha’ananim; 2 – Mamluk bridge across Hinnom Valley; 3 – sections outside the south wall of the Old City; 4 – Tall hewn channel opposite southwest corner of the Haram/Temple Mount.)

View attachment 7459

I believe there was a similar bridge and dam located near Ophel and just south of the Robinson's arch, but must have been destroyed completely, leaving no traces of it. And this dam provides flowing water to the Temple proper from the aqueducts powered only by gravity (and this is possible because Ophel's elevation is sufficiently low).

My reason for believing the existence of this Ophel bridge is that a 3000 year old first temple water reservoir or dam was discovered in the Jerusalem archaeological park, underneath Robinson's arch on the southwest corner of the Temple Mount and below the drainage channel recently uncovered in the same area. It was dug sometime between the time of Solomon and the Babylonian captivity. The enormous water reservoir can hold more than 66,000 gallons or 250 cubic meters of water.

A water reservoir this big must have a source to supply its water, and this source I believe were the aqueducts built by Solomon.

 

[Jesus' Follower]

Welcome to CF Eulalio Eguia.
These are very good schematics; I am afraid that my history is limited for this area so I cannot comment.
It certainly look like there are members that have some historical knowledge that may be of aid to you.

 

[Eulalio Eguia]

Welcome to CF Eulalio Eguia.
These are very good schematics; I am afraid that my history is limited for this area so I cannot comment.
It certainly look like there are members that have some historical knowledge that may be of aid to you.

Thank you for the warm welcome. If there are portions on my video which you don't understand, please let me know, and I will try to explain it better.

 

[tim-from-pa]

You mentioned aqueducts. It is known that the aqueducts pass through Wilson's arch via a bridge and a dam. And this dam waters the vicinity inside the Temple Mount.

(Numbered areas indicate location of visible remains illustrated here: 1 – Reference segment at Mishkenot Sha’ananim; 2 – Mamluk bridge across Hinnom Valley; 3 – sections outside the south wall of the Old City; 4 – Tall hewn channel opposite southwest corner of the Haram/Temple Mount.)

View attachment 7459

I believe there was a similar bridge and dam located near Ophel and just south of the Robinson's arch, but must have been destroyed completely, leaving no traces of it. And this dam provides flowing water to the Temple proper from the aqueducts powered only by gravity (and this is possible because Ophel's elevation is sufficiently low).

My reason for believing the existence of this Ophel bridge is that a 3000 year old first temple water reservoir or dam was discovered in the Jerusalem archaeological park, underneath Robinson's arch on the southwest corner of the Temple Mount and below the drainage channel recently uncovered in the same area. It was dug sometime between the time of Solomon and the Babylonian captivity. The enormous water reservoir can hold more than 66,000 gallons or 250 cubic meters of water.

A water reservoir this big must have a source to supply its water, and this source I believe were the aqueducts built by Solomon.

Yes, you brought up an important point, that is the aqueducts were gravity fed (and thus not sealed). This is what I thought but I was not sure. The point being as I mentioned earlier that the Dome of the Rock is too high in elevation to have the water gravity fed from those locations which greatly supports your theories since your location shows an elevation where gravity fed water is possible. I'm not sure why they believe the temple was once up there at the Dome -- not only is it too high, but also if I'm not mistaken there is not any evidence of aqueducts in that direction as well. If I am wrong, correct me on this but I think it's more or less solid under the mount in that area -- that's the impression I got from Norma's book. I watched your video already. As you continue your research, perhaps you can put all your findings in a .pdf format book in the same manner that Norma also has. That would be great, and perhaps will convince the Jews one day that the temple was not where they think it was. Blessings.

 

[Eulalio Eguia]

Yes, you brought up an important point, that is the aqueducts were gravity fed (and thus not sealed). This is what I thought but I was not sure. The point being as I mentioned earlier that the Dome of the Rock is too high in elevation to have the water gravity fed from those locations which greatly supports your theories since your location shows an elevation where gravity fed water is possible. I'm not sure why they believe the temple was once up there at the Dome -- not only is it too high, but also if I'm not mistaken there is not any evidence of aqueducts in that direction as well. If I am wrong, correct me on this but I think it's more or less solid under the mount in that area -- that's the impression I got from Norma's book. I watched your video already. As you continue your research, perhaps you can put all your findings in a .pdf format book in the same manner that Norma also has. That would be great, and perhaps will convince the Jews one day that the temple was not where they think it was. Blessings.

If you look at the aqueducts picture in my last post, you will see that the aqueduct channel ends at Wilson's arch, and the Dome of the Rock is located north of Wilson's arch, and is elevated higher as well. So the aqueduct simply doesn't water the area of the Dome of the Rock at all.

 

[Jesus' Follower]

Thank you for the warm welcome. If there are portions on my video which you don't understand, please let me know, and I will try to explain it better.

Thank you for your kind offer - I will re-watch the video and I probably will take you up on that offer.

 

[ezrider]

I am just curious, but why the interest in Ophel, or the location of the temple.


Does the location of the temple remain hidden to you?