Open main menu


Contents

Re: the erroneous depictions of the Temple form and process. Considering that the Temple is as much allegorical as functional this is very important imho.Edit

Just a very general comment; though an important one imho.

I have yet to find a diagram which faithfully represents the Temple as described in the major Biblical texts; those included here being no exception.

Of course there are some puzzling paragraphs in the texts, which are certain to confuse the average reader, but anyone seriously studying the texts ought to be able to figure out how or why the scribes occasionally fell into 'error' when putting down certain details. For one, the scribes were not architects and so when describing the measurements they seemed to have no strictly formal canon of mensuration. Of the many features of the Temple some are measured internally and others include in the measure, for no apparent reason, the walls containing the space.

Secondly, I have yet to come across a diagram which correctly depicts the positioning of the temple's Pillars; Jachin and Boaz. All of the texts describe the pillars as being located within the vestibule which is a partially enclosed porch. N.B. the Hebrew letter for 'house' is Bet (which has the form of an open room or partially enclosed space). There is a clue to this allegory (symbolism) in the case of the town of Bethlehem 'Bet Lechem'; house of Bread, located not so far from the main City of Jerusalem.

Within the Holy Place (the Knave - the largest of the rooms of the House) of Solomon's Temple there is a station for the display of the twelve pieces of the 'Bread of the Presence' along with the golden lampstands (the Menorah).

So - the two pillars should be placed within the Vestibule, not outside of it and being gated from the outside (Eastern aspect, and thus being gated, in sight of the Altar and it's court - and perhaps within sight of the Sea of Bronze at the Southeast corner). Between the two pillars within the gated Vestibule is also where the ten steps leading up the raised platform of the Temple House were situated; NOT as so many 'scholars' seem inclined to site them. Only a golden chain work stands before the door of Holy of Holies which reflects the Golden Gates sited before the Vestibule's East side ( it's West end - the site of the huge four leaved main doors).

I sincerely hope that these comments will be of assistance to the earnest student of the Temple - it's true form - and the allegory or occult symbolism that it was constructed to purposely contain.

John M Kendal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.108.148.220 (talk) 09:35, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Nebuchadnezzar II siege linkEdit

Is there anyway to link the normal page on Nebuchadnezzar II's siege of Jerusalem and the more common date rather than just the specialized page and their date, or indicate it's a debated date? It's a little odd to click on the link and be on a different page.Kismetmiss (talk) 02:16, 14 July 2018 (UTC) ---Thank you for correction — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kismetmiss (talkcontribs) 03:36, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a reliable sourceEdit

@2601:646:8A00:F348:21E2:465E:D6C7:86A2: Wikipedia is no WP:RS is one of the first things one has to learn as a Wikipedia editor, see WP:CIRCULAR. It just not need being said all over the place. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:52, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Concerning FreemasonryEdit

The article states that there is a connection between the Temple ajd Freemasonry, but does not give any examples of how it relates, particularly in the ritual. It's odd that there are onky a few lines on the topic, and no detail. If no one objects, I can expand the section a little to elaborate more, while also giving citations. Pepe Oats (talk) 15:04, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

These are later myths and legends, nothing to do with the time when the Temple existed. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:27, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Irrelevant. The legends and Freemasonry are related to the topic, and they have a section in the article that is rather thin. Since Freemasonry is a notable thing in itself, and it is related to the topic of the article, it should at least have more than "Freemasonry's rituals are related to the Temple" and explain how they related.
I should also mention that the Temple's existence itself is contested, and could be, and has been, described as a myth and legend. I believe the Temple existed mind you, but to claim it is established fact that it existed is ignoring a sizable academic and popular belief that it didn't.
Pepe Oats (talk) 15:40, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Since the temple is associated with a mythological king, Solomon, its existence has been disputed for a long time. Nobody has been able to find anything confirming Solomon's existence, much less the supposed king's building projects. Dimadick (talk) 14:16, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
I think that most scholars would grant the point that there was a temple, probably small, probably not Solomon's and probably Pagan. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:15, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
The temple is generally accepted (whether built by Solomon or not, the existence of Solomon, and the scope of Solomon's rule (e.g. Solomon could have existed - just not as grand as described)) as historical. Regarding pagan rituals - the general consensus these a-days is that there was a progression of beliefs in the first temple. The temple originally probably had a physical representation of Y' and probably housed worship only for Y' (as the ethnic god of Israelites - just as Moabites had Chemosh) - and there was pagan worship of other gods outside. There were also additional temples elsewhere, also dedicated to Y' (e.g. - see recent find at Tel Lachish - [1]). At the end of the first temple era, there was an attempt to centralize worship to Jerusalem and remove imagery. Icewhiz (talk) 06:56, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Archaeological remnants of the Jerusalem TempleEdit

Just a reminder we have to keep these two articles in line. I'm not sure about the Archaeological remnants of the Jerusalem Temple's lead. Doug Weller talk 18:45, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

I've made a couple of edits here to provide balancing references, since there are two academically accepted positions on Solomon, being the Minimalist (we know nothing) and the Maximalist positions. Martin Turner (talk) 18:46, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't think the historicity of Solomon has much bearing on the temple itself - he was the mythical namesake (of our current title, we could've also titled this as "First Temple") - however the temple persisted long after Solomon. Icewhiz (talk) 06:58, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
@Icewhiz: yes, let's just stick to the archaeology issues for this. Doug Weller talk 15:46, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Archaeology: list of "proofs" needs massive overhaulEdit

What's now under "Other" is worthless (no info on where the finds were made, how they prove Temple existence and/or location), and the source is dead. Arminden (talk) 15:11, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Spiritual legacyEdit

Nothing in Judaism (-kabbalah) or Christianity (-FM)? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:05, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Solomon's Temple was 60 cubits long, 20 cubits wide, and 30 cubits highEdit

I added "The house that King Solomon built for the LORD was 60 cubits long, 20 cubits wide, and 30 cubits high." {[bibleref2|1 Kings|6:2[} 2601:580:109:6120:31F3:AC1F:3069:1B2E (talk) 03:33, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Return to "Solomon's Temple" page.