The Lost Rivers of the Garden of Eden

[Tevye]

Found this eye opening article recently
and I had never imagined...
I always thought maybe in the mountains of Turkey...

The quest for pinpointing the exact location of the Biblical Garden of Eden and the four rivers almost rivals the quest for the location of fabled Atlantis. And the theories that abound are almost as numerous as the interpretations of the seven days of Genesis.
-
The Bible says that the river flowed out of Eden, but nowhere does the Bible give a geographical size for what constituted the area of Eden. Therefore, the actual source of the waters could have been south of Lebanon. More specifically, those waters could have originated near Jerusalem in present-day Israel.

The Israel/Lebanon region as the location of Eden and the lost river finds considerable support in the Bible. Support for this line of reasoning in found in the fact that God considers the land of Israel as His Holy land. It was upon one of the mountains in the "land of Moriah" (Genesis 22:2) where Abraham was told to Sacrifice his son (a type of the Lord's sacrifice of Jesus). Solomon was told to build the Temple "at Jerusalem in mount Moriah" (2 Chronicles 3:1) and Jerusalem was where the Lord Jesus was actually crucified. By extension, we can assume that when God sacrificed an animal to cover Adam and Eve with its skin (Genesis 3:21), that animal was a Lamb (Roman 13:8). Therefore, we can be certain from the typology that Adam and Eve, and the center of the Garden of God, were somewhere at or very near geographical Jerusalem.
-
Now, what exactly do those spiritual realities have to do with the location of the river of Eden? In the future, when the Lord Jesus Christ establishes His Kingdom and Righteous Temple in Jerusalem, the Bible speaks of a river flowing from below the Temple.
-
Since the original "Tree of Life" was in the Garden of Eden, does it not make sense that, when the Lord makes all things new, that the future "Tree of Life" would be restored to its proper place? And that place is in Israel. The same place, upon the mountains of Moriah (Jerusalem),
-
Jerusalem sits just west of the Great Rift valley. It is quite possible that legendary river of Eden originated from a massive artesian aquifer, the source of which has long since been disrupted by block faulting along the Rift. We know for a scientific fact that there is a considerable amount of "fossil" water under the Middle east in the deep-rock sandstone aquifers of the region such as the Nubian sandstone aquifers and equivalent formations.
-
in the days of Adam and Eve, a "mist" went up and watered the face of the Earth within the Garden (Genesis 2:6). Fountains of waters (underground waters under pressure gushing upwards) would certainly be a logical source for the generation of such a mist and would be a logical feed-source for such a river.
-
The available data appears to suggest that present-day Israel
was the central location of the Garden of Eden
The whole article available here at: kjvbible.org/rivers_of_the_garden_of_eden

[good4u1]

Yes...I have the book. I posted about this subject a little while ago and the thread caused such ruckas that it got locked.

But everything regarding this book is highly Scriptural. I LOVE his book and re-read it frequently.

[Tevye]

Oh, I remember.

I didn't realize that was where this was coming from.
The above page came up during a search on Jerusalem.
Although this theory is very interesting, I would imagine or hope
that the idea of Eden and Israel is not interconnected to the
author's creation perspective. Even if it is, the possibility
that Jerusalem was once where the heart of Eden was
is quite intriguing. Didn't mean to stir up old feelings
about the old and new earth theories, just noticing
how interesting the information about where Eden
may have been located and how that would
give some insight into the future of Jerusalem.

[GodsStudent]

This is so refreshing to read. In the midst of everything sour and dark of this day and age, to come across something like this is ...well....just pure encouragement. MARANATHA!!!!

[good4u1]

:spin: This is so refreshing to read. In the midst of everything sour and dark of this day and age, to come across something like this is ...well....just pure encouragement. MARANATHA!!!!

GodsStudent...

Then I highly, highly recommend you get Gaines R. Johnson's Book from his web site that Tevye just referenced. It covers a wide variety of topics not just his accurate understanding of geology and the Bible, which I of course, agree with, but also a variety of other topics as well. I can't recommend this book enough. Happy reading!

[GodsStudent]

Cool. While I'm down with my spinal chord injury, it would be a perfect time to get this and read it.

[good4u1]

I'm sorry that you are injured, but if your a captive audience you won't be able to put this good read down. Let me know what you think you can download it from Amazon if you have an e-reader for half the price than the paperback. But if you decide to get the hard back edition shipping is pretty fast.

It was an easy read for a complex scientific subject if you read it frequently and carefully think about what he is saying. He has a strong point of view and you will see it come across in his writings, but backs it up with facts.

[1whowaits]

The location of Eden is described in Genesis 2, a book written by Moses around 2,000 years after Adam left Eden and after the flood of Noah. Moses associates the location of Eden with areas known to the people of Moses' time (not the people of Adam's time), 'Asshur' is a capital of Assyria, which did not exist at the time of Adam. Therefore the reference to the Tigris and Euphrates rivers in Genesis 2 would appear to be the location of the rivers known at the time of Moses. This would then associate the location of Eden prior to the flood with a landmark known at the time of Moses, which is consistent with the area of Assyria/Babylon.

Which is not the location of Jerusalem but may be a possible location of the tower of Babel, in the plain of Shinar. The post-flood people may have known the general location of where Eden had been, there may have been a reason why they chose to build a tower that reached to heaven in that location.

[Jericho]

I have heard of this theory also. The exact location is hard to pin point because rivers change course over time and I'm assuming the great flood changed the topography of the landscape. So anywhere from the Mediterranean Sea to modern day Iraq is a good as guess as any. It is interesting to note that the area between the Euphrates and Tigris river, Mesopotamia, is generally thought of as the cradle of civilization. This is also the area where Abraham came out of.

[good4u1]

GodsStudent,

Don't let anyone's opinion confuse you, just read the book. Johnson will explain it and if I can understand it, so can you. Enough already.

He doesn't say nor can anyone say for certain, but his evidence is compelling. Make up your own mind on the matter.

[Tevye]

The location of Eden is described in Genesis 2, a book written by Moses around 2,000 years after Adam left Eden and after the flood of Noah. Moses associates the location of Eden with areas known to the people of Moses' time (not the people of Adam's time), 'Asshur' is a capital of Assyria, which did not exist at the time of Adam.

Yes you are correct.
Assyria came into existence long after Adam lived
and the river Tigris may have been located in Adam's time
in the same location it was in the time of Assyria, but...
the theory is, that there was a location that was one river from Eden
that split into four that may have flowed quite a distance from it's origin being Israel.
Maybe Israel and Lebanon were more then of the land of milk and honey then they were for Joshua
or of the land that it is today. Maybe the land will be restored when the Lord opens a fountain
in the New Jerusalem:
“On that day a fountain will be opened to the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem,
to cleanse them from sin and impurity. “On that day, I will banish the names of the idols from the land,
and they will be remembered no more,” declares the LORD Almighty. “I will remove both the prophets
and the spirit of impurity from the land. - Zechariah 13


" A river watering the garden flowed from Eden; from there it was separated into four headwaters."
As seen above it's possible that the origin river came out from Eden and then split into four rivers
that went in different directions leading to other areas in the middle east, and so on...

Maybe this will happen once again when Yeshua reigns from the New Jerusalem?

[1whowaits]

Teyve, during the millenium there will be a river flowing from the temple that appears to empty into the dead sea, as described in Ezek 47. The water from the temple makes the salt water fresh and trees will bear fruit. This bears a small resemblance to Eden but it appears to be more of a forshadowing of what will follow after the millenium.

After the millenium there will be a remade heaven and earth, whether the same topography will exist is unknown. Whether the New Jerusalem is in the same location as the current Jerusalem is not stated, therefore one could not know whether the New Jerusalem would be anywhere near the location of where Eden was in the old world. But it is the New Jerusalem after the millenium that appears to more closely reflect the conditions of the garden of Eden, and even better.

In the New Jerusalem there will be the river of life and the tree(s) of life, no more will there be any curse (as occurred after Eden), and God will not just come to walk in the garden, He will live there. And the New Jerusalem will measure 1,400 miles x 1,400 miles, it would cover all of Israel and Babylon and most of the ME, the exact location would appear to be irrelevant when 1,400 miles (12,000 stadia) are involved.

Trying to link the location of Eden to Jerusalem by looking at the similarities between old Eden and the New Jerusalem, which will exist on a completely new planet, would appear difficult as we don't know what the new earth will look like topographically.

Moses stated in Genesis 2 that God planted a garden in the east, east of what? Where is the central point of the earth in scripture from which all directions are determined? Eden would be to the east of that, likely east of Jerusalem.

[Tevye]

After the millenium there will be a remade heaven and earth, whether the same topography will exist is unknown. Whether the New Jerusalem is in the same location as the current Jerusalem is not stated,

Hello 1whowaits, it is possible
that the New Jerusalem would be located where the old one was.
It would be like Brussels, after it's desolation and destruction
would be called New Brussels, and so on...
The royal center of the New Jerusalem could be located
where the old city is now and the walled region move outward from there.

it is the New Jerusalem after the millenium

It has been imagined that the New Jerusalem will come down after the 1000 year reign
and that everything in the world would be perfect when that final time has come, but
I propose that this theory is incorrect. Because during the time of the New Jerusalem
there still will be those outside her walls who are called "the dogs"...

"The glory and honor of the nations will be brought into it.
Nothing impure will ever enter it, nor will anyone
who does what is shameful or deceitful..."

Outside of the great city there will still be the remnant of the nations
who have survived the Day of the Lord wrath upon the earth.
They will be the ones who will need to be ministered to
to be led to Messiah Yeshua. People will still die then.
But many will come to worship the King and be healed.

In the description of the New Jerusalem it is written:
He who was seated on the throne said, “I am making everything new!”
In that time when this great city is upon the Earth, the Lord will continue His restorataion.
The thousand years will be a time of restoration and healing, there will be work to be done.
The Lord has said that He is "making" verses made all things new, a continuing present tense.
This restoration will begin prior to the begining of the 1000 year reign, just after He reclaims the earth.

But it is the New Jerusalem after the millenium that appears to more closely reflect the conditions of the garden of Eden, and even better.

Yes, You're right. But I would say
it will be a process of restoration towards Eden and beyond, that will happen
during the healing of the nations inside of the millenial kingdom.

In the New Jerusalem there will be the river of life and the tree(s) of life, no more will there be any curse (as occurred after Eden)

Yes, within the city.
Yet, outside the city there will be a curse for those who do not travel to the city for healing or to worship the King.

the exact location would appear to be irrelevant when 1,400 miles (12,000 stadia) are involved.

But is it irrelevant to the Lord where He chooses to put the royal center to be?
I imagine that anything is possible with God. It could be relevant.

Trying to link the location of Eden to Jerusalem by looking at the similarities between old Eden and the New Jerusalem, which will exist on a completely new planet, would appear difficult as we don't know what the new earth will look like topographically.

We live now on a different planet than it was in the days of Eden.
God's ways are so different than our own, it is possible that He will retain in the restoration
a semblance of the the former geography for the nations to have a point of reference to travel to.

Moses stated in Genesis 2 that God planted a garden in the east, east of what? Where is the central point of the earth in scripture from which all directions are determined? Eden would be to the east of that, likely east of Jerusalem.

Looking into the Hebrew for the word used as "in the east" it is קֶדֶם qedem
defined means more than towards an eastern direction, it could be...

a) front, from the front or east, in front, mount of the East

b) ancient time, aforetime, ancient, from of old, earliest time

c) anciently, of old (adverb)

d) beginning

...that the referenced Hebrew was intended to say
that the garden was made from before man was placed there in Eden.
Instead of Eden being to the East of no mentioned point of reference.
This seem logical to me that the intention for "qedem" was meant for time verses location.

Genesis 2:8 could be read:

Yĕhovah Elohiym (The Lord God) planted the garden Eden before he placed the man, who He formed, there.

Indicating that God Himself prepared a home for humanity before He formed them.
Showing that He is the provider of life for humanity, for His creation.

This would appear to make sense in relation to the New Jeruaslem
as the restoration of the Earth centered in the location of creation
would bring glory to the creator and restorer of all life.
The Messiah will save, He is mighty to save.
To God be the glory.

[morpheus]

I think the size of New Jerusalem will be quite a bit smaller than is commonly though. New research has been done and the past conclusion is now thought to be in error.

The Bible gives the size of New Jerusalem in a couple places. In the OT it seems the city will be within an area about 11 miles square. Yet in the NT is seems the city is 1,400 miles square. The two numbers do not match - or do they?

The NT actually says the number is the same in three dimensions, width, length, and height - and all three are equal. But this can be understood two different ways. The first way, and the historical interpretation, is that the number given should be cubed. So each side is 1,400 miles. The second way this passage could be interpreted is that the number given is the cubed total and each side should be the cubed root. In that case, which is the new understanding, is that each side of the city is about 11 miles - exactly what the OT says. Therefore the new understanding is now thought to be the correct one.

A book has just been published that explains this new understanding. It is an interesting read. It also explains a few other prophetic puzzles that people have questioned over the years. I happen to know the author.

http://www.amazon.com/What-Earth-Heaven ... 040&sr=8-1

[1whowaits]

Morpheus, it appears that part of the confusion regarding measurements of the temple and Jerusalem in the OT and NT is that 2 different periods of time are being described. Rev 20 describes the reign of Christ for 1,000 years, followed by the GWTJ and eternity. The differences between the millenium and eternity noted in scripture aid in identifying which period is being discussed.

During the millenium there will be a rebuilt temple as described in Isa 2 and Zech 6, while during eternity there will be no temple as God and the Lamb are the temple, so there are no temple measurements in any passage describing eternity. There can be measurements of the city, the New Jerusalem, but no measurements of the temple as there is none, during eternity.

The measurements in Ezekiel 40 and following include the measurements of the temple, indicating that the millenium is being described in Ezek and not the time of eternity. In Rev 21 the New Jerusalem is being described with no temple measurements as there are in Ezekiel, Rev 21 is therefore describing eternity. 1,400 miles is correct for the New Jerusalem during eternity and the measurements of Ezekiel are of a different time, the millenium. After the millenium the earth will be remade and all things become new suggesting that what is constructed during the millenium will not continue into eternity, there will be a rebuilding after the millenium.

Teyve, i would disagree with your theory that there will still be sin during eternity, it is during the millenium there will still be sin, rebellion and death as Zech 14 and Rev 20 describe. During eternity there will be no more death, mourning, crying or pain, the old order will have passed away, suggesting that there will be no more sin and rebellion (outside of the lake of fire). Rev 20 and 21 indicate that all those who are evil will be cast into the lake of fire.- 'their place will be in the firey lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.'

Jesus does indicate in Rev 22 that the evildoers will 'outside' the city during eternity. As Rev 21 indicates that the evildoers will be in the lake of fire, where then is the lake of fire? --outside of the city. That the place of punishment will be visible to those who come out of the city is suggested in Isa 66- 'As the new heavens and the new earth that I make will endure before me...all mankind will come and bow down before me, says the Lord. And they will go out and look upon the dead bodies of those who rebelled against me; their worm will not die, nor will their fire be quenched. and they will be loathsome to all mankind.' The new heaven and earth would be a reference to eternity, the worm not dying and the fire not being quenched would point to eternal death in the lake of fire, which apparently can be looked upon by those who 'go out' (from the New Jerusalem).

[Tevye]

Teyve, i would disagree with your theory that there will still be sin during eternity

Didn't say that.
...that there will be sin in eternity.

Unless you're thinking that the New Jerusalem
won't be here until eternity begins after the
1000 years ends.
Then I could see how it may appear
that I may be saying that.
I believe the New Jerusalem will descend
down to the Earth on the 1st day of the 1000 year kingdom.

There will be those who in the kingdom
will have survived the day of the Lord
who had not received the mark of the beast
or worshiped the beast, who will enter the kingdom.
People who still need salvation.
And there will be people who will be outside of the City
who are called "the dogs" who will not be allowed into the city.
But not in eternity...
never said that.
As far as I know, eternity begins when the kingdom age ends.
Although, eternity begins for believers when the transformation happens.

In Revelation 20 and into 21 the Apostle John is seeing things that
happen in stories, I see in chapter 20 a description of an event
that happens after the 1000 years are over, but at this point
in the Revealtion it does not define a timeline on through to
the rest of the Revelation. What the apostle continues to see
is what will be happening when the 100 years begins
yet a brief stop to say that the enemy will have his end
after the 1000 years are completed.
This type of story telling I imagine allows for the New Jerusalem
to appear and descend to the earth on the 1st day of the millinium.

[1whowaits]

Teyve, there is some debate about the timing of the New Jerusalem, imo the New Jerusalem arrives after the millenium because in Rev 21 Jesus makes the statement that 'there will be no more death, or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away..' in association with the New Jerusalem coming down to earth. During the millenium there will be punishment according to Zech 14, nations who rebel will receive no rain, there will be pain, and there will be death, the multitudes that attack Jerusalem at Gog II are all killed. And it is not until the end of the millenium that death and Hades are thrown into the lake of fire, death is finally destroyed.

The statement by Jesus that there will be no more death, in association with the New Jerusalem, would suggest that the New Jerusalem will come down only after there is no more death, which is after the millenium, after the GWTJ, during the eternity that follows. It is not until after the millenium that the conditions described by Jesus in Rev 21 can occur, and it is when those conditions are in effect (no death) that the New Jerusalem arrives, the last enemy is destroyed to usher in the eternal state- 'For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death...' 1 Cor 15.

And when death is finally defeated, when there is no more curse, the conditions like those of Eden will again be in place.

[morpheus]

1whowaits,

You paint a very complex picture of this time period with almost no overlap between OT and NT passages. There exists a much simpler explanation with most everything overlapping between the OT and NT. You should study both theories and make an informed decision. The simpler view is very new in origin and not many people know of it. That is why I posted some info to help educate people.

The view you are defending is older and most of us already know all about it. In fact, that is what I was taught. And I think it really is a jumbled mess. I don't mean to be condescending at all. Until recently, the old complex theory was the only theory anybody ever put forward. People rarely debated it because our understanding was so limited. Almost nothing matched between the OT and NT. But now there is a new theory to consider. So learn the new research and compare the two theories. Then let us know what you think.

[1whowaits]

Morpheus, i am not sure what is so complex. The 2 passages that describe specific measurements of future structures are Ezek 40-48 and Rev 21. Rev 21 describes the New Jerusalem as being quite large and specifically states that there will be no temple structure in the New Jerusalem. No temple being present would suggest that there are no measurements for the temple that does not exist, and none are detailed in Rev 21.

In Ezek 40-48 the majority of the passage specifically describes the measurements for a temple structure with the land for the city being smaller than that for the temple/sacred district, the temple is more prominent than the city.

Isa 2 describes a temple during the millenium, Rev 21 describes no temple structure during eternity. Simple logic would suggest that Ezek 40-48 is describing a rebuilt temple during the millenium while Rev 21 is describing eternity during which there is no temple, pretty straightforward imo. It is not a OT vs NT issue, it is 2 different periods of time being discussed.

Is there another measurement of the New Jerusalem or Temple that this book you suggest refers to? Do the authors of this book understand that there is a difference between the millenium and eternity? As far as reviewing the theory of this book, i am not sure i would want to spend the $$ on this book, perhaps you could present some of what this book suggests and we can debate it.

[Sword of Geddon]

Here is what I believe.

The garden of Eden was where the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers intersect today. During the first days of the world we know that God had appointed Cherubim angels to guard the garden, including the angel that became satan.

I believe Satan deceived Adam and Eve into sinning, and also was the angel that blocked them from reentered Eden afterwards.

I believe satan views that area as the start of his reign over earth. I think it is why the first Babylon was in that area, as well as the second.

Today a new "embassy" is being built over the ancient city of Babylon which is the size of the vatican. There is something significant about that region of the world.

[morpheus]

1whowaits,

You accept the measurement of the New Jerusalem in Rev as 1,400 miles cubed, right? Well, this number might not be correct. Maybe not even close. Actually the number is correct, just maybe not the old interpretation of it. I have explained the cubed vs. cubed root issue. You have not responded to this with any logic or data yet.

The NT actually says the number is the same in three dimensions, width, length, and height - and all three are equal. But this can be understood two different ways. The first way, and the historical interpretation, is that the number given should be cubed. So each side is 1,400 miles. The second way this passage could be interpreted is that the number given is the cubed total and each side should be the cubed root. In that case, which is the new understanding, is that each side of the city is about 11 miles - exactly what the OT says. Therefore the new understanding is now thought to be the correct one.

I think the old interpretation confused a lot of the data concerning timing, location, side, and even shape. The book I mentioned goes into the distinction of the temple too. There is not one in the city but there is one outside the city. The book lays out a better way to harmonize all the questions. I hear what you are saying with the old theory but I suggest it appears that a lot of detail has been misunderstood.

If you want to find out more about the theory, then buy the book. That is why it is written. It is not expensive. I know the author and they didn't publish it make money. They did it just to get the theory out and hopefully help people understand better.

A lot of the old understanding starts on dubious premises and assumptions and hardly any details match between the OT and NT. Thus people think everything is separate. But the new understanding has all these matches between he OT and NT. It is at least worth a look if you are interested in the subject.

It is similar to the gospels. There are differences between Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Yet we harmonize the four gospels. Anybody who comes along and thinks they are talking about four different guys named Jesus would be laughed out of the room. Same for the sun, moon, and stars going black/red. Some people see up to four different times that this happens. Others see it as all talking about the same event. Occum's Razor weighs in here.

The Bible is filled with redundancy. We harmonize all the time. That is the core of systematic theology and a fundamental principle of hermeneutics. So any time somebody comes in and can show a big match between two or more very detailed sets of data, it is the natural thing to realize that the odds of a match are practically impossible by chance. Our old understanding is probably flawed.

Even the author is not dogmatic on the new theory but puts it out there for people to examine. That is my position too. Examine both sides. Do I think the new theory is better? Yes I do. Just don't dig in to one position when people have flagged the existing theory as questionable.

I really do not have a lot of time to go into more detail. Hope this little helps.

[good4u1]

This is somewhat how the paradigm shift from Europe/EU being the center of the End Times to the correct location of the Middle East/Islam being the center of End Times became more accepted and closer to biblical prophecy, Morpheus. And how very, very few in the church understood but now many accept but for a handful of brave souls who kept beating the drums at the time. Best wishes on this new position by the author you know. It will stand or fall at the test of time.

[Tevye]

would suggest that the New Jerusalem will come down only after there is no more death,

I hear ya, but...
according to scripture
there will be death when it is here on earth.
Because outside of the city gates are "the dogs"

"Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they may have the right to the tree of life,
and may enter by the gates into the city. Outside are the dogs and the sorcerers
and the immoral persons and the murderers and the idolaters,
and everyone who loves and practices lying."

The fact that there are murders outside of the gates
indicates that there will be death in the time
the New Jerusalem is here on earth.

It is also interesting to note that...

"nothing unclean, and no one who practices abomination and lying, shall ever come into it,"

...indicating that outside of the city walls there will be the things happening mentioned above.
"Practices" being the present tense of the action. If it said practiced then there may be a case
for the city beign here after death was no more. But, scripture tells us it will be here before that time.

Another interesting message to note is from the Old Testament.
During the time of the New Jerusalem kingdom there will be those who will die.

“On that day a fountain will be opened
to the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem,
-
And if anyone still prophesies, his father and mother, to whom he was born, will
say to him, ‘You must die, because you have told lies in the LORD’s name.’
When he prophesies, his own parents will stab him.
Zechariah 13

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Concerning Stadia, and the measured length of the New Jerusalem...
"The city was laid out like a square, as long as it was wide.
He measured the city with the rod and found it to be 12,000 stadia
in length, and as wide and high as it is long."

"Stadia (unit of length)"
-
The stadion, Latinized as stadium and anglicized as stade, is an ancient Greek unit of length.
According to Herodotus, one stade is equal to 600 feet. However, there were several
different lengths of “feet”, depending on the country of origin.

If Herodotus was correct, then we would take
600 feet X 12,000 stadia and it would equal 7,200,000 feet.
7,200,000 feet / 5,280 feet per mile equals 1,363.636363636364 miles.

The thickness of the walls is described as being 144 cubits thick...

“How long is a cubit?” The answer, however, is not certain because ancient people groups assigned different
lengths to the term “cubit” (Hebrew word אמה [ammah]), the primary unit of measure in the Old Testament.

The length of a cubit was based on the distance from the elbow to the fingertips, so it varied between
different ancient groups of people. Here are some samples from Egypt, Babylon, and ancient Israel:
...................Inches (centimeters)
Hebrew (short) - 17.5 (44.5)
Hebrew (long) - 20.4 (51.8)

So taking the long amount we would have
20.4 inches (per cubit) X 144 cubits would have a wall 2,937.6 inches
One foot equals 12 inches so it's wall would be 244.8 feet thick.
One may wonder though if the walls themselves would be solid or
if they are constructed to house the inhabitants and visiting guests?

[1whowaits]

Morpheus, actually this is not a measurement issue, it is whether one gives weight to a direct statement in scripture regarding a certain period of time. Rev 21 directly states that there is no temple in the New Jerusalem because God and the Lamb are its temple, indicating that a temple is not necessary during eternity. The scripture directly states that no temple is seen and a reason why there is no temple. No temple means no temple, there is no temple in the New Jerusalem, the New Jerusalem is not a temple, there is no evidence of any temple outside of the New Jerusalem.

Ezek 40-47 consists mainly of the plans for a future temple. As there is no temple during the time of eternity and the New Jerusalem, the only logical conclusion would be that Rev 21 and Ezek 40-47 are describing 2 different times, Ezek 40-47 cannot occur during the time of Rev 21 as there is no temple in Rev 21.

So if this book contradicts a straightforward statement of scripture that there is no temple during the time of the New Jerusalem, why should one consider any other part of its argument?

[1whowaits]

Teyve, the scripture states that all those who commit evil are thrown into the Lake of Fire. All those who commit evil do not have their names in the Lamb's book of Life cannot enter the New Jerusalem. Those who commit evil, the 'dogs', are outside of the New Jerusalem. For all of the statements in scripture to be consistent, those who commit evil are outside of the New Jerusalem in the Lake of Fire. The evil doers are not running around for all eternity outside of the New Jerusalem, they are condemned to the lake of fire outside of the New Jerusalem for eternity.

[Tevye]

the scripture states that all those who commit evil

Have we never commited evil in our life?
Are we all not guilty of sin?
Where is the grace for those who are lost
and are yet to be found in Christ, even in His earthly kingdom?
Will there be a chance for people to come to Messiah for salvation in that day?
I believe there will be hope for those who will survive the day of the Lord.
And we will be His ambassadors of hope who will travel this world
with a message of God's grace and mercy beyond those gates of splendor.

[Sword of Geddon]

Yet there is a distinction made, there are people so evil and wicked that God won't forgive them(Satan applies). It all comes down to whose name is written in the book of life. Anyone with Christ as Lord is in the book, as is anyone else God chooses to forgive(such as those people who died never hearing the gospel, or those redeemed by Christ after death if that is possible.).

[Tevye]

there are people so evil and wicked that God won't forgive them (Satan applies).

Yes there are bad people, but who are we to cast the first stone?
I believe there is never a heart to hard, or a soul so far away that God can't reach.
The enemy of our souls is a fallen angel, he can never apply for the grace of God.
Christ died for people, and as King here on earth, His grace will still apply.
In fact when His presence is here will us it will be the ultimate revealing of His grace and mercy.
I could never imagine that the love of the Lord will stop reaching out to a fallen world.
While in this life and the life to come in His kingdom, there may be those who will reject him.
But, I refuse to see any description of the Lord as ever unloving a dying world due to it's sin.
As long is there is a breath in us to breath or a heart beating, God can save us, and He will.

[Tevye]

"Coming back soon" - by Randy Stonehill - (((videolink)))

[1whowaits]

The scripture makes the distinction that the evil doers being discussed do not have their names written in the Lamb's book of life, they have not accepted Christ. Once one accepts Christ, the evil that one has done is covered by Christ's atonement and one is not seen as an evildoer, even though evil has been done in the past. The evildoers do not have their name in the Lamb's book, they do not enter the New Jerusalem, they are cast into the Lake of Fire for all eternity, outside of the New Jerusalem.

[morpheus]

1whowaits,

Ezekiel specifically states the location of the city and the temple are not in the same place. Take a look at these passages from Ezekiel.

Ezekiel 45

1 “‘When you allot the land as an inheritance, you are to present to the LORD a portion of the land as a sacred district, 25,000 cubits[a] long and 20,000[b] cubits[c] wide; the entire area will be holy. 2 Of this, a section 500 cubits[d] square is to be for the sanctuary, with 50 cubits[e] around it for open land. 3 In the sacred district, measure off a section 25,000 cubits long and 10,000 cubits[f] wide. In it will be the sanctuary, the Most Holy Place. 4 It will be the sacred portion of the land for the priests, who minister in the sanctuary and who draw near to minister before the LORD. It will be a place for their houses as well as a holy place for the sanctuary. 5 An area 25,000 cubits long and 10,000 cubits wide will belong to the Levites, who serve in the temple, as their possession for towns to live in.[g]
6 “‘You are to give the city as its property an area 5,000 cubits[h] wide and 25,000 cubits long, adjoining the sacred portion; it will belong to all Israel.

7 “‘The prince will have the land bordering each side of the area formed by the sacred district and the property of the city. It will extend westward from the west side and eastward from the east side, running lengthwise from the western to the eastern border parallel to one of the tribal portions. 8 This land will be his possession in Israel. And my princes will no longer oppress my people but will allow the people of Israel to possess the land according to their tribes.

Ezekiel 48

9 “The special portion you are to offer to the LORD will be 25,000 cubits long and 10,000 cubits[b] wide. 10 This will be the sacred portion for the priests. It will be 25,000 cubits long on the north side, 10,000 cubits wide on the west side, 10,000 cubits wide on the east side and 25,000 cubits long on the south side. In the center of it will be the sanctuary of the LORD. 11 This will be for the consecrated priests, the Zadokites, who were faithful in serving me and did not go astray as the Levites did when the Israelites went astray. 12 It will be a special gift to them from the sacred portion of the land, a most holy portion, bordering the territory of the Levites.

13 “Alongside the territory of the priests, the Levites will have an allotment 25,000 cubits long and 10,000 cubits wide. Its total length will be 25,000 cubits and its width 10,000 cubits. 14 They must not sell or exchange any of it. This is the best of the land and must not pass into other hands, because it is holy to the LORD.

15 “The remaining area, 5,000 cubits[c] wide and 25,000 cubits long, will be for the common use of the city, for houses and for pastureland. The city will be in the center of it 16 and will have these measurements: the north side 4,500 cubits,[d] the south side 4,500 cubits, the east side 4,500 cubits, and the west side 4,500 cubits. 17 The pastureland for the city will be 250 cubits[e] on the north, 250 cubits on the south, 250 cubits on the east, and 250 cubits on the west. 18 What remains of the area, bordering on the sacred portion and running the length of it, will be 10,000 cubits on the east side and 10,000 cubits on the west side. Its produce will supply food for the workers of the city. 19 The workers from the city who farm it will come from all the tribes of Israel. 20 The entire portion will be a square, 25,000 cubits on each side. As a special gift you will set aside the sacred portion, along with the property of the city.

21 “What remains on both sides of the area formed by the sacred portion and the property of the city will belong to the prince. It will extend eastward from the 25,000 cubits of the sacred portion to the eastern border, and westward from the 25,000 cubits to the western border. Both these areas running the length of the tribal portions will belong to the prince, and the sacred portion with the temple sanctuary will be in the center of them. 22 So the property of the Levites and the property of the city will lie in the center of the area that belongs to the prince. The area belonging to the prince will lie between the border of Judah and the border of Benjamin.

So there is direct scriptural evidence for the temple in Ezekiel being separate from the city. The question then becomes what city is Ezekiel referring to. The fact that the measurement for the base of the city exactly matches the cubed root of the number revealed in Revelation seems good evidence that it is Mount Zion. The size matches, the shape matches, and even the timing does too. When you examine all the data, you find they do match up.

This is what the book I mentioned goes into detail explaining. I don't mean to be pushy about the book. After all, it just shows how to harmonize Scripture. If you have the Bible you have the data. You can harmonize it yourself. But the size of the city can throw people. Some translations and Bible notes tell people to cube the number rather than to take the cube root. This difference stops most people in their tracks from harmonizing the OT and NT.

Prophecy discussion has focused mainly on whether there will be a millennium and the timing of the rapture. Very few people know the details about the New Jerusalem and I doubt most people know the measurements found in Ezekiel off the top of their head. Who has actually mapped out the measurements found in Ezekiel? I hadn't. When Janet WIllis went to see who had, she found hardly anybody had mapped out the details. She researched what others had said before her and then she did the mapping herself. She took her results and showed them for a couple years to bible scholars around the nation. When they could not find problems with her research, she published her book.

So 1whowaits, I hope this helps. It shows some commonly held beliefs are contrary to what the Bible actually says. Not that this affects one's salvation or makes one more or less spiritual. But it does answer some questions we might have. If God revealed it, then He meant us to properly understand it.

Janet's book also makes some guesses based on this conclusion. She theorizes this whole temple and mountain shape is the reason behind all the ancients' pyramid building projects. She even theorizes about the location of the Garden of Eden. Whether she is right on these guesses we can't be sure. But again, I suggest anybody interested buy the book. Or just do your own study. Just make sure you look at the cubed root size possibility.

[morpheus]

As for the temple not in Rev, that is an easy answer. The focus is on the city. Yes, there is no temple in the New Jerusalem, but Rev never says there is no temple outside the New Jerusalem. That is your assumption.

From Ezekiel we know there will be a future temple and a separate city. The focus is on the temple and land, not on the city.

As for the size of the city, we have a firm number. But we have to interpret this number as either a cubed number or a cubed root. Either one might be true. We have to make an educated guess which one is correct. But only one can be true.

I see no problem harmonizing the Rev and Ez. passages. You do and see it as two different times and places. But your view is based on an assumption, no harmony, and a guess of a number dealing with size. This is not just a straight Scripture issue.

The new view is also based on a guess dealing with size, but it does not depend on another assumption. It also has a detailed harmony between the OT and NT. A harmony like this is too complex to be a product of chance.

The biggest issue is Rev 19-21. Are those chapters strictly sequential? If so, then it would seem that one should put the New Jerusalem coming down after the millennium. If it is not sequential, then one has to see if the New Jerusalem comes down earlier.

I think between Rev 20:3 and Rev 20:4 is a clear jump. So a strict sequential order is not here. This jump is just a little one but a jump nevertheless. Are there any more jumps? How about after Rev 20:10? Does the GWTJ take place at the start or the end of the millennium? Or both - half earlier and half later? Most people just assume it takes place afterwards. Same for the New Jerusalem coming down. But there is no reason why it couldn't take place at the start.

Maybe the GWTJ and NJ do take place after the millennium and the new theory is wrong. But I do not think the case is just straight scripture and not worth looking at all the theories. If somebody disagrees with the new theory, then that is okay. I think we all can agree that God has something wonderful in store for us and we all look forward to it. None of us Christians alive now will live to see the start of the millennium without the rapture happening first. So we have great reason to debate and try and understand the timing of the rapture. But the New Jerusalem is another story. As long as people understand the Bible tells of a real city with a real God and real judgement, then any differences are not essential. We are all on the same side.

Heb 11 states the men of the past looked for a city whose maker and builder was God. That is what we should do too. Threads like this are just a modern part of this "looking."

[1whowaits]

Morpheus, it is not an assumption when scripture states something clearly. Rev 21 states that no temple is seen in the New Jerusalem because God and the Lamb are its temple. The scripture indicates that there is no temple because God has taken the place of the temple, God is the temple, this is not an assumption, this is what the scripture says.

Your view would contradict this, stating that there is a temple when none is described and suggesting that God has not replaced the temple as the scripture clearly states. No scripture describes a temple structure in the New Jerusalem, no scripture describes a temple structure outside the New Jerusalem, but the scripture does state that there is no temple structure in the New Jerusalem because God is the temple.

The burden then falls upon your view to prove that a temple structure does indeed exist at the time of the New Jerusalem, which you cannot do, you can only make an assumption that is not backed up by scripture.

Your view has in essence put the cart before the horse, before attempting to reconcile different measurements your view must first demonstrate that a temple does indeed exist during the time in question, which it has not done. Therefore reconciling the measurements of Ezek and Rev has no meaning as the view falls short in demonstrating that a temple structure even exists in Rev 21. Until your view can prove that a temple structure exists at the time of the New Jerusalem, the logical conclusion would then be that the measurements in Ezek and Rev are describing 2 different structures, which is then reinforced by the difference in measurements.

[morpheus]

1whowaits,

I had quoted scripture that states a future temple is going to be outside a city. What temple do you think this is? What city do you think this is? What would be the name of this city? When do you think the Ezekiel temple is going to exist? I would argue all this is during the millennium. Do you agree?

Yes, the New Jerusalem of Rev does not have a temple within the city. But the Revelation passage never states whether there exists a temple outside the city. It only talks about what is inside the city. Quit quoting verses of what is inside the city as some proof of what is outside the city. If you have found a verse that says "there is no temple outside the city" then I am all ears.

It is like two people talking about a glass of water. One thinks it is half full. The other thinks it is half empty. Are they talking about the same glass of water? Maybe, maybe not. But unless some data exists that excludes the two from being the same glass, you cannot state definitely they cannot be the same glass. Also if there exists some unique data that limits things to only one certain glass, then we can state both people are talking about the same glass.

That is how I see this situation. Ezekiel has a sacred land and a temple outside the adjacent city. Revelation has a city without a temple inside it but no further data about what is outside. From this data alone, there is no way to state the two can or cannot be the same. They may or may not be the same. Is there more data that can shed light on this?

How about size? Well there exists the possibility that they match exactly. They both have the same "mountain" shape. Also they are both called New Jerusalem or Mount Zion. It is starting to look more and more like the same glass of water to me.

Is there any data that doesn't match up? Maybe. The timing of Rev seems to be after the millennium. But this is not for sure. Rev 20-22 has jumps in time - particularly dealing with the start and end of the millennium.

Jesus promises in John 14 that he is going to go prepare a place for us. He will comes back and we will forever be with the Lord. Jesus also comes back to earth and reigns for 1,000 years. We too will help in his administration in His kingdom. So we conclude we too must live here on earth for that 1,000 years. What is this place he is preparing for us? Where is this place going to be at? It has to come down and be on the earth too or we will not forever be with Jesus and it will not be our home. So Heaven has to come down and be on the earth and it must come down before the millennium, otherwise we are homeless for 1,000 years.

If you disagree with this then present your details of how this all goes. The way I see your view, we get raptured or resurrected to heaven and as soon as we get there, we have to leave and come back to earth with Jesus. So much for it being our home. We all then live in a new Jerusalem that is not heaven but an earthly city. We have to wait another 1,000 years for our true heaven. Or do you think we stay in heaven where we live, but Jesus is not there for 1,000 years and we have to wait till after the millennium to be with him forever?

How many New Jerusalems do you believe in? I say same glass of water.

[1whowaits]

Morpheus, yes, i keep harping on the 'no temple in the New Jerusalem' passage because it points out the weak point of the view you are describing. Sorry, i just have to do this 1 more time, John sees no temple in the New Jerusalem because God and the Lamb are its temple. So the view you are describing would appear to then be - even though God and the Lamb are the temple in the New Jerusalem and for this reason no temple is seen in the New Jerusalem, actually there is this temple outside of the New Jerusalem that is there because.....God and the Lamb are the temple inside the New Jerusalem? Does that really make sense? The statement that God and the Lamb are the temple of the New Jerusalem would appear make the existence of a temple just outside of Jerusalem unlikely, which of course this outside temple is not described in Rev.

Since such an outside temple does not make sense and appears to be highly unlikely as the scripture states that God and the Lamb are the temple, one might then ask why is a temple described in Ezek 40-47 and not in Rev 21? Could it be that 2 different structures are being described at 2 different times in Ezek and Rev? Is that possible?

Rev 19 -21 do appear to give a straightforward timing of events. Armageddon is followed by the reign of Christ for 1,000 years, the milllenium. After the 1,000 years there is Gog II and the GWTJ, both described after the scripture states that the 1,000 years are at an end.

After the GWTJ, the heaven and earth are remade and the New Jerusalem comes down to earth, after the 1,000 years are completed. Confirming that 2 different periods are being described, during the 1,000 years there will be death and suffering, as described in Zech 14 and in Rev 20 at Gog II and the GWTJ. After the 1,000 years there is no more death or pain, as Jesus states in Rev 21, demostrating that 2 different periods are being described, first the millenium, then eternity.


Isa 2 describes the house of the God of Jacob on the mountain of the Lord, the temple, in a discussion that is consistent with the milllenium -'He will teach us His ways, so that we may walk in His paths...He will judge between nations and will settle disputes for many people. They will beat their swords into plowshares...' (no settling of disputes or judging nations during a perfect eternity)

So during the millenium there will be a temple, and this is most likely what Ezek 40-47 is describing. Eternity follows the millenium and it is during eternity, when there is no death or suffering, that the New Jerusalem comes down to earth.

[morpheus]

iwhowaits,

It is significant which questions you answered and which ones you did not. You say the Ezekiel temple is probably the millennium temple. On this we agree. However, there is a city right next to it. Scripture states this. What is the name of this city? Is it not Jerusalem? Seeing that Jerusalem gets destroyed in the tribulation, the city must be a new Jerusalem. Yet if I understand you correctly, you are saying there must be another New Jerusalem after the next New Jerusalem.

Also, why is the temple outside the city? Could it be that the temple is for the mortals and the city is for the immortals? That is why there is no temple in the city. The immortals in the city have direct access to God. But not the mortals outside. They cannot come into the city. Thus there is a perfectly good reason to expect a temple outside the city but not inside.

How about answer this question. Does the city in Ezekiel have a temple inside it? I would guess you would say no. That is because there is one right outside the city. So why should anybody be surprised if in Rev, when John describes the city, he tells there is no temple inside?

During the millennium, where is heaven? Where are we going to live? Where is Jesus going to live? You never answered these questions. If your theory makes sense it must answer all the questions, not just some.

[1whowaits]

Morpheus, you ask some interesting questions, i will answer as best i can, but some of this is speculation.

Why is the temple separate from the city in Ezek? Ezek 45 indicates that sacred area is for the temple and the priests- 'it will be a place for their houses as well as a holy place for the sanctuary'. There does appear to be some desire to separate the place of God from that of the people in Ezek 43- 'when they placed their threshold and their doorposts beside my doorposts with only a wall between me and them, they defiled my holy name by their detestable practices. So I destroyed them in my anger. Now let them put away from me their prostitution and the lifeless idols of their kings, and I will live among them forever.'

Apparently because of Israel's past, God does desire some separation between the holy and those who are not always holy- 'This is the law of the temple; all the surrounding area on top of the mountain will be most holy. Such is the law of the temple.' The temple mount is holy, not the city, perhaps because of the One who lives there -'I will live among them forever.' Who will live among them during the millenium?

'the survivors of the nations...will go up year after year to worship the king, the Lord Almighty, and to celebrate the feast of Tabernacles.' The Lord Almighty who is the King that reigns during the millenium is Jesus, who will be present in Jerusalem- 'If any of the peoples of the earth do not go up to Jerusalem to worship the King, the Lord Almighty....'Zech 14.

Jesus will live and be worshippped in Jerusalem, where would He most likely stay during the millenium? 'In the last days the mountain of the Lord's temple will be established as chief among the mountains...and all nations will stream to it. Many peoples will say, come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob. He will teach us His ways....' Isa 2 Jesus will apparently live in the temple, the house of the God of Jacob, and the mount will be raised up, likely higher than the city, perhaps why the city and temple are spearate.

Also the people of the world will interact with Jesus directly- 'He will teach us his ways, so that we will walk in his paths. The law will go out from Zion, the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. He wil judge between nations and will settle disputes for many peoples.'

Jesus will live in the temple, on the raised up temple mount, in the area of Jerusalem. From a practicle standpoint, if the temple mount is elevated but the city is not, there would be a separation between the temple and the city. Also from a respect and worship of the King of Kings standpoint, it might be desirable to have His dwelling elevated and separated from the rest of the dwellings.

And this is a significant difference between the millenium and eternity, during the millenium Jesus will live in the area of Jerusalem in the temple with a separation between the city and the temple, while during eternity Jesus and the Father are the temple, in the New Jerusalem, and there is no indication of separation between God and the people, God and man live together in the same place.

[1whowaits]

Morpheus, as to where we will live during the millenium, the scripture does not directly indicate this except to say, 'that where I am, there you will be also', and 'so shall we ever be with the Lord'. Also we are a holy priesthood, where do the priests live during the millenium in Ezek 45?

I would speculate that as we will rule and reign with Christ in our new bodies, we may discover some new realities. When Jesus was on the earth in His new body He would enter rooms with locked doors. I would theorize that we will be able to pass from the physical world into to the spirit world in our new bodies, which is likely what Jesus did. The spirit world need not be somewhere in distant outer space, it is in essence another plane of existence, right next door. When Jesus ascended up into the clouds, how far did He go? How high are the clouds? Perhaps as high as a mountain?

Perhaps this is another reason the temple mount is raised up, could it be to the level of the clouds where Jesus went, to the entrance of heaven? (and I saw heaven standing open and there before me was a white horse, whose rider is called Faithful and True...' Rev 19, 'at that time the sign of the Son of man will appear in the sky, and al the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky..' Matt 24, ''This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven.' Acts 1)

[1whowaits]

Morpehus, i would agree that Jerusalem suffers much destruction during the GT and armageddon, and will be rebuilt, and from Zech 6 it appears that Jesus Himself will help rebuild the temple. The name 'New Jerusalem' does not refer to the area of Jerusalem but the specific structure described in Rev 21. This is likely the place being prepared described by Jesus in John 14, the Father's house with many mansions. It is currently in heaven and will not descend until after the earth is remade, which makes sense. The remaking of the heaven and earth after the millenium and GWTJ would cleanse all the residue of evil and rebellion forever, a new and holy earth for a holy and New Jerusalem. And God and man live together in the same place, no separation ever again, full and complete fellowship, forever.

[morpheus]

1whowaits,

I know these are tough questions and even I am not sure I know the answers. I too speculate. My main point is that while Scripture is true and doesn't change, our understanding of it does. Many things we think are fact, we find out later are our faulty interpretations. This has happened to me many times. I just want to end up right - that is if we can actually even figure things out.

I thought your last couple of posts were pretty good. All I might question is whether the temple is on top of the mountain. I see the city being a mountain city next to the temple. The fact that the two are right next to each other would then make the temple the "temple of the mountain" even though in fact it is not actually "on" the mountain. Thus people could say "let us go up to the temple of the mountain" but not "the temple on the mountain."

The author of the book I told you about talks about this. It would be much like when Israel was at Mount Sinai. The mountain was separate but next to the tabernacle. This is why God could say to Moses to make sure the tabernacle should match the pattern seen in Heaven. If Heaven does not have a temple in it, what was Moses seeing then? How could he copy what does not exit?

Also, another interesting passage is Genesis 1 when God created the firmament to divide the waters. God called the firmament Heaven. Most people today think firmament means "atmosphere" or "outer space". However, this word "firmament" was created because the translators thought the meaning of the Hebrew words in Genesis 1 meant "something firm, spread out like a plate." Maybe it meant something like space, just as we can talk about acres of land being space.

The Bible also talks about Noah's Flood being caused by the "fountains of the great deep" rupturing. These fountains of the great deep would be subterranean water under the earth's crusts. One can make a Biblical case that the source of Noah's Flood was the water under the firmament, not some vapor canopy in the sky. So to continue this idea, it sure seems Heaven used to be on earth, at the time of Creation. That is why God called this firmament Heaven.

It seems at some point Heaven left the earth and I speculate it did so at the time of Noah's Flood. I would even guess this leaving caused Noah's Flood. Someday it will return to earth and our earth will be Heaven. But as for right now, Heaven is somewhere up beyond outer space. Thus the reason why we think and say what we do today.

I know a lot of this is speculation and maybe far fetched compared to what is commonly thought. I suggest the work of Dr. Walter Brown and his Hydroplate Theory for the science of the water under the earth and the Flood. He has a book and a website http://www.creationscience.com that are very good.

Genesis 1 would then have Heaven (the ground), and a firmament of the Heaven, or Heaven of the Heaven (space of space). The city Heaven is now gone even to a different dimension it seems, seeing that it comes back after the heavens, sun, moon, and stars are rolled back like a scroll. One could say it is in the space beyond the space of space. That is why Paul said he knew a man (probably himself) who was caught up to the third heaven. It seems God's heaven is beyond space as we know it, but someday that will change. It will come back to earth and earth will be Heaven.

If somebody disagrees with my theories, I understand. Even I am not sure of all this. There is so much we do not understand. We look through a glass darkly, as I Corinthians says. Sometimes very darkly.

[1whowaits]

Morpheus, agreed, some things are not so clear, some things perhaps a little more clear. How the topography of Jerusalem and the temple mount changes during the millenium is not clear except that the 'mountain' of the Lord will be elevated higher than the surrounding mountains. Whether the city of Jerusalem would be at the same elevation as the temple mount is not clear, i could visualize the city at the base of the mount with a path up the mount to the temple where Jesus is, that would be 'epic'. Scripture describes Jesus as being on the mount and in Jerusalem during the millenium so the layout is not completely clear.

Zech 14 describes an earthquake that splits the mount of Olives when Jesus sets foot on the mount, and those Israelis in Jerusalem flee through the valley created by the split (somewhat similar to the splitting of the red sea). Perhaps there will be a projecting upward of the landscape during the earthquake which elevates the temple mount, or Jesus Himself just causes the change in landscape demonstrating His power as creator.

It is interesting that there will be a separation between the sacred area and the city, and the sacred area would be much larger than it has been at any time in the past which would make sense with Jesus residing in that area during the millenium. I had not really considered this before you brought it up, thanks for pointing it out.