How Arad Isrealite Temple Laid Out Using Rope

8/7/2019 How Arad Isrealite Temple Laid Out Using Rope

1/11

How Arad Israelite Temple Was Laid Out By Using Measuring Cords

By Robert Kerson 2/20/11

(The reader must first read the article,How Jerusalem Jewish Temple Was Laid Out Using Ropes

before reading this paper or my introductory paper:Introduction to laying out Sacred Spaces in Middle

East,all labels of similar features in this article are labeled identically with the labeling of the figures in

the proceeding article. Thus, point (A) in both articles mark the northeastern corners of each square etc.

This paper I present as a proof that the Jerusalem temple used the same survey technique since the

designers of the Jerusalem temple must have had knowledge of sacred temple building techniques. This

is confirmed stated in 2Chronicles 2:1-13. This knowledge could not have existed in a vacuum but very

likely was known throughout the region. This knowledge could be expected to be used in Israelite

temples dating from when the Jerusalem temple existed.)

The Israelite temple within the square fortress at Tel Arad, and the Jerusalem temple were

both laid out in a similar fashion using measuring cords laid out in a triangular shape. In either

case, the design would cause the temples innermost sacred areas to fall within thenorthwestern quadrants of their respective squares.

Both temples were laid out by men who were aware of identical methods at somewhat the

same time period. I cannot state when this work was done, but it could have been within the

time span between the reigns of King Solomon and Hezekiah. Nor can I deduce which was built

first: a temple at Arad or a temple at Jerusalem. Although the Jerusalem temple no longer

exists and my methodology appears to be a theoretically possibility, the existence of the

archeological remains of an Israelite temple of great age possibly going back to the time of

Solomon, demonstrating the exact same working system as my theoretical system, becomes

major evidence they actually used this technique in building these temples. No otherresearcher on the Jerusalems temple location can present evidence that the Arad fortresss

temple location was laid out with rope by the same procedure, nor can they explain where the

dimensions of the JerusalemAzarahcould have come from but I most definitely can.

I should point out that although both sites have temples constructed within squares having

similar alignments to the four compass directions, the dimensions of each were different. The

dimensions of the Arad square is the area within the fortress walls. If one was to be inside the

fortress, one was within a sacred space, analogous to the square 500 cubit space on the temple

mount in Jerusalem. The size of the square was 100 Cubits which allowed this square to fit

neatly on the underlying mountain top.At Jerusalem there is some uncertainty as to which was determined first: the altar or the

great 500 Cubit square, but here at Arad there can be no uncertaintyits associated square

existed first. The square at Arad determined the size of the triangle, whereas at Jerusalem, the

size if the triangle worked out from natural features, determined the size of the square.
https://www.scribd.com/doc/37750783/How-Jewish-Temple-Laid-Out-Using-Measuring-Cordshttps://www.scribd.com/doc/37750783/How-Jewish-Temple-Laid-Out-Using-Measuring-Cordshttps://www.scribd.com/doc/37750783/How-Jewish-Temple-Laid-Out-Using-Measuring-Cordshttps://www.scribd.com/doc/37750783/How-Jewish-Temple-Laid-Out-Using-Measuring-Cordshttps://www.scribd.com/doc/253514632/Introduction-To-laying-out-Sacred-Spaces-in-Middle-Easthttps://www.scribd.com/doc/253514632/Introduction-To-laying-out-Sacred-Spaces-in-Middle-Easthttps://www.scribd.com/doc/253514632/Introduction-To-laying-out-Sacred-Spaces-in-Middle-Easthttps://www.scribd.com/doc/253514632/Introduction-To-laying-out-Sacred-Spaces-in-Middle-Easthttps://www.scribd.com/doc/253514632/Introduction-To-laying-out-Sacred-Spaces-in-Middle-Easthttps://www.scribd.com/doc/253514632/Introduction-To-laying-out-Sacred-Spaces-in-Middle-Easthttps://www.scribd.com/doc/37750783/How-Jewish-Temple-Laid-Out-Using-Measuring-Cords


2/11

Both temples were laid out in the North West sections of their respective squares which can

be accounted for by this paper since both temples used the identical 5:8:8 triangle which main

point of reference was at their N.E. corner labeled (A) in both papers (see Fig. 2).

(See Fig. 1) Israelites built (in stratum X) a square fortress on top of a hill. They removed

whatever structures were at the site and designed the only gate built in the eastern wall justsouth of the N.E. corner of the square. An analogues gate in the square temple mount would be

where the present Golden Gate now exists.

The remains of the inner edge of the southern fortress wall can still be seen or implied. The

locations of the squares other walls and corners although less certain, still can be reasonably

approximated.

At a later time (in stratum X), the Israelite temple labeled (10) was constructed. Previous

altars or temples may have been built somewhere nearby upon these heights, but this is of no

importance to this discussion for I will now demonstrate how only the Israelite temple could

have been laid out using ropes in a fashion identical to the how the Jerusalem temple could

have been laid out as described in the previous article.

Using a long piece of knotted rope, a triangle would have been laid out having the ratio

8x:8x:5x where the length of the preexisting inner surface of the northern wall, a distance of

approximately 83.4 Cubits was taken as the side 8x of this triangle. The value of x is about

10.42 C, thus 8x is 8*10.42 C or 83.4 C. (The value of x in the Jerusalem temple, was a fixed size

of 8x:8x:5x where x = 62.5 Cubits or 500C total length, and each cubit is the large Royal Cubit of

52.5cm long.) Here at Arad the preexisting square set on a natural hilltop determined the size

of the main triangle labeled (A), (B), (C) of a red triangle, causing a relatively smaller square.

Point (A) was the NE corner of the square. The length 5x was along the eastern side of the

square. The original gate would be at the of 1x measured southward from point (A) on the main

triangle, at the point labeled (5). This gate was identically placed south of the NE corner of the

great har ha` biyet square on the temple mount in Jerusalem where it was the only gate in the

eastern wall of the Jerusalem temple. This is the site of the present Golden Gate. A new gate

was opened on the center line of this Israelite Temple square, which would be at the distance

of 1x measured northward from point ( C ) on the main triangle, at the point labeled (6). Note

both gates at points (5) and (6) are located along the 5x eastern side of the main triangle.

The mirror image triangle drawn in green, has its apex on structure that is labeled point (7).

(Also see Figs. 2 and 3) On the northern side of the triangle (between points Aand B), on the

point of the triangles side, a new line made parallel to the northern edge of the square, was

laid out. This point, the intersection of the triangle with this linethe center or axis line of the

temple, is labeled I. This point would be at the 6th

knot from point Aor 6/8 the length from Ato

B.


3/11

Just to the north of this point they constructed the SW corner of the altar labeled (2) within

the courtyard1(By the SW corner on the southern edge of the altar was where water and wine

was poured into two holes on the Jerusalem altar at a later time. This corner in the Jerusalem

temple was close to a drain called the Shis. In the book of Ezekiel 47:1, the temple description

of water coming out of the foundation and running on the south side of the altar is similar tothe situation at Arad temple, where a very ancient cistern2and postern system is to the south of the

altar and predating the temple by thousands of years, brought water to the city below the fortress. Note

the triangle passes over a cistern at point (12), then to a channel running to the south of the Debirat

point (11).

This line became the axis or center line of the temple complex. You see it as a series of red crosses in

all figures and are labeled (CL) in all figures. This center line runs just south of the altar (In the Jerusalem

Temple, the center line runs along the outer edge of the altar, but I cannot be exactly sure of where

point (I ) is or where the center line is because I need a very large scale drawing of the site. Also there is

some doubt as to the exact locations of the corners of the square. If I go by my drawings, the difference

in the axis lines of these two sites is a fraction of a meter. ) If a priest offered sacrifice by standing onthe south side of the altar (he could not stand to the north since the northern side was a walled

storeroom. See a fuller discussion in the appendix. ) he would have been standing on the axis (or center

line-- a term I use interchangeably). He would have been standing just to the east of point (I).

1If the altar and axis line were to have been determined from point (I) located exactly at this spot, then the

triangles point A would have been exactly where I have placed it on a location wherethe probability of being the

actual NE corners of the square is very great. As point (I) falls away from here, the location of point A also moves to

a less tenable spot. Point (I) will always be near a spot on the altars actual location, making it very l ikely this

temple was laid out according to this geometric system.2 After The Harper Atlas; New York;P. 188s of the Bible;Editor James B. Pritchard; Harper &Row,

Publishers.


4/11

Main triangle labeled (a), (b), (C) in red.

Mirrored triangle is in green.

1. The Israelite Temple

2. the altar

3. The Debir(Holy of Holies)

5. A gate 1x distance from point (A) of triangle.

6. A gate 1x distance from point ( C ) of triangle

7. Apex of mirrored triangle with structure built at apex.

11. Water channel

12. Cistern under line from (B) to (C) of main triangle

CL is center axis line shown as a Red crossed line.

Triangle ABC whose lengths are in the ratio of 5:8:8, is drawn in red.

3 ( After The Harper Atlas; New York;P. 188s of the Bible;Editor James B. Pritchard; Harper &Row,

Publishers)


5/11

(See Fig. 2) Here is a comparison of Arad and Jerusalem temples overlaid with my system.

These drawings are not drawn to scale. A very important geometric principle to consider is at

work here: the area of workable surface is dependent upon the size of the square. Thus the

size of the square determines the size of the triangle. For example--- the size of the Israelite

temple is exactly the size the square would allow. While in Jerusalem the much larger squarewould have allowed a much larger triangle, thereby creating a much larger area for a temple.

Again, the size of the temple and its inner courts was precisely the correct size the larger 500C

square would generate.

The temple at Arad has a very obvious difference from the Jerusalem temple: the Heickal or

main room in the Arad temple was of the broad room plan (the long axis ran northsouth),

while the Jerusalem temple was of the Heickal long room plan (the long axis ran eastwest).

The size of the square at Arad would not allow a long room to be built as there would be not

enough space to lay out a long room here.

At Jerusalem the size of the square could be much larger (500C on each side). This would

allow space for a long room design as in Solomons temple.

If we have the location of the Debirworked out by ropes, then the location of the broad

room can be worked out, because its size was the same size used in Solomons temple but

turned sideways and measured in Royal Long Cubits of 52.5 cm per Cubit length (Whether in

long or short cubits or some other unit of measure is of no importance to this discussion since it

is immaterial to the location of the triangle, and to locating the axis line and Debir.)

Another difference between the two temples is that here at Arad, the altars southern edge

was north of the temples center axis line thereby putting the altar to the north, whereas at

Jerusalem the altars northern edge was south of the temples center axis line thereby putting

the altar to the south. Why this difference?

At Arad, the center line and its adjacent altar was on the northern 8x of the triangle (Points

(A) to (B) putting the altar north of the center line, but at Jerusalem, the center line and its

adjacent altar was on the southern 8x of the triangle (Points (B) to (C)), putting the altar south

of the center line.

A third difference between the two temples is that here at Arad, Point (I) marks the location

of the altar, while at Jerusalem, point (I) falls within the long room Heickal, on the rock within

the Dome of the Rock. This difference is due to the fact that the size of the triangle and square

on the temple mount is so very large, the temple building can be large and the important point

I can be within the space of this building.

Point ( I ) is the length of line (same as 6x) (A) to (B) at Arad in top view, and point I is the

length of line (same as 6x) (B) to (C)at Jerusalem in bottom view. Arad has no space for long

room, but the larger size of triangle and square at Jerusalem would allow it. (Not drawn to


6/11

scale. Arad is much smaller then Jerusalem when drawn to scale.)

(See Fig. 3) This is a detail view of Fig. 1. Note point (I) at the 6x location is the critical point

located in both the Jerusalem temple and here at Arad, but here it is exactly at the SW corner

of the altar.


7/11

2. Altar

3. The Debir.(Holy of Holies)

Point (I)the intersection of the 6x distance on the triangle measured from the base at (A). This marked

the SW corner of the altar.

CL Center Axis Line

(See Fig. 4). The size and location of the Israelite temple would have been determined by the

size and location of the square. The distance from (I ) to point B is 2x, the distance from (I) to B

became the distance which laid out this temple. (Point (I) is that point on the segment of theline from A to B where A to (I) is 6x, and the segment of the line from (I) to B is 2x making a

total length of 8x.) This is the same distance from 30 to 31, and from 32 to 33.

If the line from A to B where to be swung northward, point B would reach the western end of

the Debir(3).

Thus, the North- South width of the Israelite temple was determined from the short side of

the 5:8:8 triangle and the EastWest length of the Israelite temple was determined from the

two long sides of this same triangle.

4 One God, one cult,one nation:archaeological and biblical perspectives;edited by Reinhrrd G. Kratz and

Hermann Spieckermann ; published New York:Walter de Gruyier, P. 170 ; author Zeev Herzog


8/11

2. Altar

3. Debir(I) same point on all figures

A, B, C corners of 5:8:8 triangle

30, 31, 32, 33 corners of Israelite temple

(See Fig. 5.) Another triangle could then be laid out where the distance 2x in Figs. 1, 4, was

taken as the base length of a new small 5:8:8 triangle shown in Fig. 5. The apex of this triangle

(point 14), reaches the location on the center axis line (red crosses) just before the Debirin the

broadroom (the long North to South room before the Debir acting as a Heikalroom.

If the distance of 1x was extended westward along the center axis line, point (13) would havebeen reached. This would be similar to the measurements taken at the Cave of Machepah ( see

my paper,How Cave of Machpelah Was Laid Out)Also if the distance along the center axis line

were extended westward by length 8x, the resulting point would be very close to point (13).

The northern part of the temple was divided by a wall with two openings to create a room

which separated the altar from this long northern room. The placement of this wall was at the
https://www.scribd.com/doc/266034894/How-Cave-of-Machpelah-Was-Laid-Outhttps://www.scribd.com/doc/266034894/How-Cave-of-Machpelah-Was-Laid-Outhttps://www.scribd.com/doc/266034894/How-Cave-of-Machpelah-Was-Laid-Outhttps://www.scribd.com/doc/266034894/How-Cave-of-Machpelah-Was-Laid-Out


9/11

half way point of the line making the northern 8x side of this triangle. This half way point (4x)

was where the northern side of the altar abutted against the wall.

2. Altar

3 Debir (Holy of Holies)

(I) same as (I) in all figures.

13. Extension of center line (red crosses) the distance of 1x.

14. Apex of this smaller 5x:8x:8x triangle where 5x is the width of the Israelite temple.

15. A gate into the temple courtyard located north of one corner of the triangle.

(See Fig. 6)

Point (8) is at or very close to point (13) in Fig. 5. (The scale I am using makes it difficult to

precisely determine this.) The distance from (I) to (8) at the eastern edge of the Debir, also

measures in an arc from (I) to three other significant construction corner locations, at the NE

corner, the SE corner, and the SW corner of significant parts of the temple. This is far more than

pure coincidence.

5 One God, one cult,one nation:archaeological and biblical perspectives;edited by Reinhrrd G. Kratz and

Hermann Spieckermann ; published New York:Walter de Gruyier, P. 170 ; author Zeev Herzog


10/11

2. The altar

3. The Debir (Holy of Holies).

8. Point on west on center axis line, shown as red crosses, on radius of circle from point (I), measuring

the eastern end (toward the right) of Debir.

From the center point (I) on SW corner of altar, all radii drawn as green lines, are on features of the

structures and may be the measures of these corners. Each are located to the NE, the SE, and the SW of

the altar at point (I).

6 One God, one Cult, one nation: Archeological and Biblical Perspectives ; Edited by Rainhard G. Kratz

and Hermann Spieckermann; published New York:Water deGruyier, P. 170; Arthor Ze`ev Herzog


11/11

APPENDIX --

Discussion about the Israelite Altar at Arad

This altar has several violations of the Torah:

1. You could not sprinkle blood around the base on all sides because of walls built on the

northern and western sides. The altar was not free standing.

2. You could not make sacrifice on the northern side of the altar because a storeroom was

built on the northern side of the altar. The altar was not free standing.

3. The altar may not have had horns on its four corners.

4. The altar may or may not have had a step along its southern edge. If it did have a step,

this would be in violation where a ramp was called for.

The altar did have these agreements with the Torah:

1. The size was 5 Cubits square.

2. The altar was built of unhewn stones.

Documents

How Arad Isrealite Temple Laid Out Using Rope