Results of Measuring of 2000 Royal Cubits in Jerusalem

by
Robert Kerson

4/11/2016

All the images shown in this paper were made by Google Earth Pro.
This paper explores what happens when 2000 Royal Cubits are measured in the city of
Jerusalem.

Where was the Red Heifer Altar on the Mount of Olives
(See figure 1 for the following. ) All red lines represents the linear measure of 2000 Royal
Cubits (R.C.) where 1 Royal Cubit is 0.525 Meters measured in Google Earth Pro.
The Dome of the Rock is on the left and the Mount of Olives is on the right. The middle red
line is my axis line of the temple running eastward onto the Mount of Olives. All of these
measures must have been linear distances which would have to be measured—no mean feat
considering the ground was not level here, but necessary since 2,000 Royal Cubits was an
important distance for the radius size of the camp measured on flat level wilderness ground as
described in the Torah. (If the ground sloped, 2,000 R.C. would put the person closer to the
tabernacle then if the ground was flat.) I am measuring out 2,000 Royal Cubits from my site of
the Holy of Holy (point H) out along the temple’s major axis, passing through the site of the
Church of the Ascension, and terminating at a point on the Mount of Olives (Point e). This
would be the logical center point of a 2,000 R. C. circle.
I am also measuring eastward from my site of the Chamber of Hewn Stones (point S), passing
through the site of the Church of the Ascension (point A) to (point C) a linear distance of 2,000
Royal Cubits. This would allow the men in the Great Sanhedrin chamber to be away from
unclean ground of the red Heifer altar on the Mount of Olives. This location is labeled Point c.
This point is close to the summit of the Mount of Olives which is where a tall tower now stands.
This tower is a short distance North west of Point c currently within a garden area.
A third point is taken at the Eastern Gate (point G) in the outer wall of the temple mount,
measuring 2,000 R.C. passing through the same point A and terminating at Point j. This gate
was important because the heifer walked out of this gate to the altar.
These would all have been important distances from the center to the outside of the camp
where the red Heifer was sacrificed on the Mount of Olives to the east of the temple.
The three lines, one of which was the temple’s axis line, intersects at or very near the Church
of the Ascension (Point A).

The actual summit of the mount is where a tall tower was built a short distance north west
of point C. Point C appears to currently be in a garden area. The area around this tower is very
high, which includes Point (A). Several more traditional sites for the Ascension (two of which
are Russian Orthodox—a Russian church of the ascension and a rock venerated as the site
where the Virgin Mary watched the ascension) are near the Russian tower.
If a person were to stand at (point e) or (point A), it might have been possible to see into the
inner door of the temple since the view would have been downhill. I believe Point e would be
the most probable location of the Temple’s Red Heifer altar, with other temple unclean ground
nearby. Point A is too close to the Holy of Holies, but on the main axis line extending out to
Point e.

Figure 1. Two Thousand R.C. to Mount of Olives passing through A

(See fig. 2. For the following) Points (A) and (B) mark the two locations Queen Helena deemed
sacred having churches built to commemorate the Ascension with Point (B) the Elonia and
today called the Church of the Pater Noster, being the first site followed by (A) higher up the
hill. Both sites preserving a very ancient memory of these places considered sacred ground (but
the Russian Orthodox sites also are of ancient memory with a 6th century church built on the
Russian sites.)
Figure 2 shows the same three red lines measuring out the linear distances of 2000 Royal
Cubits from three locations: the temple’s Holy of Holies (point H), the Chamber of Hewn Stones
were the great Sanhedrin sat (point S), and the Eastern Gate (Point G) all passing through the
location of the Church of the Ascension (Point A) seen in Fig. 1 but with the addition of three
new lines originating in the same three locations of Fig. 1 but instead passing through the
location of the Elonia (Point B).

The distance from the two sites of the ascension, a north- south direction from Point (A) to
Point (B) was 135 R.C.. This was the same distance and the same general direction of the width
of the inner courtyard (The Azarah) in the temple (also the width of the Court of the Women
from north to south).
The distance from Point (A) to Point (e) running from west to east was 187 R.C. Again we
have the direction from west to east of the inner courtyard being 187 R.C. . The courtyard is
gone, but these two archeological sites on the Mount of Olives still hold the same general
direction and same distances as the missing Azarah on the temple mount to the west. I state
these are more proofs for my temple location.
The distance of 2000 R.C. measured from the Holy of Holies of the temple, running through
the site of the Elonia (Point B) terminates on the Mount of Olives at Point (f). The distance of
2000 R.C. measured from the Chamber Hewn Stones where the Sanhedrin sat Point (s) of the
temple, running through the site of the Elonia (Point B) terminates on the Mount of Olives at
Point (d). The distance of 2000 R.C. measured from the Eastern Gate of the temple, running
through the site of the Elonia (Point B) terminates on the Mount of Olives at Point (k).

Figure 2. Two Thousand R.C. to the Mount of Olives passing through A and B

(See figure 3. for the following. )

The Tomb Of Annas Measured 2000 R.C. From The Temple
Many tombs were constructed too close to the temple which was against the Jewish purity
law. A tomb believed to have been the final resting place of Annas a high priest (see BAR article
by Leen Ritmeyer) was constructed in a layer of bedrock suitable for tomb construction on the
southern slope of the Valley of Hinnom (also called the Valley of the Son of Hinnom) south of
the temple, in a location of unclean ground with very negative connotations (The field of blood
(Ackaldema) of the new testament and the possible site of child sacrifice). The distance from
my presumed location of the Chamber of Hewn Stones where the great Sanhedrin sat (Point s)
to his presumed tomb (Point t) measured a little over 2000 R.C.. Annis as high priest was also
the president of the great Sanhedrin. This site would have been located at the exact proper
distance for the closest location to the temple’s chamber of Hewn Stones where his bones
would forever be within sight to the temple mount but not too close to render the temple
unclean. A close inspection of the red line running southward from the presumed site of the
chamber to the tomb by Ackaldema to the south, reveals the line passed through the temple’s
Triple Gate—a gate of importance to the priests since storage of grain, wine, and oil for sacrifice
were stored here. The priestly tomb of Annas I give as another proof for my temple location for
although the chamber no longer exists, the tomb still maintains archeological evidence of the
chamber’s previous location and hence other points of the jigsaw puzzle which is the temple
mount falls into place.

Figure 3. Tomb of Annas the High Priest

Tomb of Queen Helena of Adiabene
Queen Helena of Adiabene converted to Judaism and moved to Jerusalem. She was a big
benefactor of Herod’s temple in Jerusalem and a great philanthropist during a famine payed a
fortune to feed people. Her deeds were recorded by Josephus and written by rabbis in the
Talmud.
(see Fig. 4 for the following) Here tomb complex, the largest in Jerusalem is located at point
(qh). The actual measure can be slightly over 2000 R.C. which is what would be expected since a
few extra R.C. must be added to make the distance over the limit and not on the limit. Point
(qh) measures 2000 R.C. from the northwest corner of Herod’s temple Point (NW).
It would have been very difficult to measure distances with preexisting structures and non
level ground since this would have been done without the use of satellite imagery and
computer software.
The tomb complex was north of the Golgotha rock landmark point (L) within the Church of
the Holy Sepulcher. My paper on the holy sepulcher goes into great detail demonstrating that
the landmark rock was originally a major landmark for surveying out the sacred area of the
temple and was not originally a Christian site, nor a pagan site but an important Jewish site
overlaid with pagan (site of pagan temple under the emperor Hadrian) and then Christian
reinterpretations. If so then this rock would have had great importance to a women who was a
benefactor of the temple.
The tomb complex of the queen was created in a deserted rock quarry to the north of
another deserted rock quarry where Golgotha rock was located. Both sites were originally rock
quarries.

Figure 4. Tomb of Helena The Queen