Two Sacred Hills:

 

Two Sacred Hills: Why Golgotha, Not Moriah, Was Chosen for Christ’s Sacrifice

Jonathan Moore, D.P.M., Ph.D.

Inspiration of the BibleArchaeolog

Mount Moriah, the location of the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, was the central place of worship and a site of great significance for the Jewish people. However, instead of choosing Mount Moriah as the setting for Jesus’ crucifixion, God chose Golgotha, “the place of the skull,” the distinctive site of Roman executions. While Mount Moriah represented religious purity, kingship, and priesthood, Golgotha represented death, shame, and rejection. Though within the shadow of the Temple, Golgotha was far removed from its sanctity and grandeur.

Many within Christianity have attempted to assert that Golgotha, “the place of the skull” and site of Jesus’ crucifixion, was, in fact, part of Mount Moriah, conflating the two significant locations. Yet, when it comes to Jesus’ crucifixion, Scripture offers no indication that Golgotha was situated on Mount Moriah itself. Though Golgotha was near the city and close to the Temple (John 19:20), it was distinctly outside the city walls (Hebrews 13:12) and separate from the sacred site of Abraham’s altar. This geographical distinction emphasizes God’s intent for the crucifixion of Christ to take place in a different location—near, but not on Mount Moriah.

Geographical and Topographical Differences

The geographical and topographical differences between Mount Moriah and Golgotha serve as a compelling introduction to the profound theological reasons for God’s choice of Golgotha as the site of Christ’s sacrifice. Mount Moriah, rising approximately 2,428 feet (740 meters) above sea level, was not only geographically central but symbolically the heart of Jewish worship. This elevated location was significant in Israel’s history, serving as the place where Abraham was tested with the near-sacrifice of his son Isaac (Genesis 22).1 Surely the provision of the ram in Isaac’s place foreshadowed Jesus, the ultimate sacrificial Lamb, Who would later come to fulfill God’s redemptive plan. Additionally, Moriah was where Abraham met Melchizedek, king of Salem, who blessed him and offered bread and wine, another typological pointer to Christ’s priestly role (Hebrews 7). Furthermore, it was on this mountain that Solomon built the Temple, which became the center of worship and sacrifices for the Jewish people for centuries (2 Chronicles 3:1).

In contrast, Golgotha, where Jesus was crucified, lies outside the city walls of Jerusalem to the west, approximately 600 yards (about a third of a mile) from the Temple. Topographically, Golgotha was part of an old limestone quarry that had been abandoned and eventually converted into a garden in the early first century. This location, once used for extracting building materials, later became a notorious execution site under Roman rule. It was a public, shameful place, not a hallowed ground of religious significance like the Temple Mount.

The height differences between the Temple Mount and Golgotha are also noteworthy. The Temple Mount stood higher, symbolic of its revered status in Jewish religious life. The grandeur of Herod’s Temple would have dominated the skyline, towering over the surrounding city and making it the focal point of worship, pilgrimage, and sacrifice. In contrast, Golgotha was a less distinguished, more isolated place of death, chosen deliberately by the Romans for public executions outside the city walls to maximize humiliation and warning.

Yet, it is precisely in these geographical and topographical differences that we find theological depth. As the following exploration reveals, the distinction between Golgotha and Mount Moriah seems intentional and deeply significant in God’s redemptive plan.

Golgotha Outside the City: A Fulfillment of the Sin Offering

One of the most profound reasons Jesus was crucified outside the city of Jerusalem on Golgotha, rather than on Mount Moriah, lies in the symbolism of the sin offering. According to the Mosaic Law, sin offerings were to be taken outside the camp to be burned, representing the removal of sin from the community (Leviticus 16:27). Hebrews 13:11-12 directly ties this to Jesus’ crucifixion:

The high priest carries the blood of animals into the Most Holy Place as a sin offering, but the bodies are burned outside the camp. And so Jesus also suffered outside the city gate to make the people holy through his own blood (NIV).

By being crucified outside the city, Jesus fulfilled the role of the sin offering, bearing the sins of humanity. If Jesus had been sacrificed on the Temple Mount, this crucial symbolism would be lost. His sacrifice was not just another offering within the Jewish system—it was something entirely new and greater. It was a sacrifice for sin that removed the need for any further sacrifices, as Hebrews 10:10 says, “We have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.”

Separation from the Jewish Sacrificial System

The Temple on Mount Moriah was the heart of the Jewish sacrificial system, which was the central means through which Jews maintained their covenant relationship with God. The sacrifices offered there were temporary, designed to point forward to something greater. Jesus’ death brought that system to its fulfillment and end (Hebrews 10:1-4). Hebrews 10:12 tells us that Christ offered a single sacrifice for sins and then sat down at the right hand of God. His death being geographically distinct from the Temple reinforces that His sacrifice was not merely a continuation of the old system, but a completion and replacement of it.

In a sense, God was drawing a theological line between the Old and the New Covenants. Jesus’ crucifixion on Golgotha symbolizes the end of the old sacrificial system and the establishment of a New Covenant, one based on His blood (Luke 22:20). This separation is essential to the message of the Gospel, which is that salvation is no longer mediated through animal sacrifices but through the once-for-all sacrifice of Jesus Christ (Hebrews 9:26-28).

The Temple’s Role as a Symbol of the Old Covenant

The Temple itself was a symbol of the Old Covenant and its temporary nature. Jesus prophesied the destruction of the Temple (Matthew 24:2), which would happen in A.D. 70. His crucifixion outside the Temple signifies the passing of the Old Covenant and the impending end of the Temple’s role as the center of worship. The curtain of the Temple was torn in two at the moment of Jesus’ death (Matthew 27:51), symbolizing that the separation between God and humanity had been removed. Worship was no longer tied to the Temple but to Jesus Himself.

Theologically, placing Jesus’ sacrifice on Golgotha emphasizes that the new way of relating to God—through Christ—is separate from the old Temple system. If Jesus had been crucified on Mount Moriah, it would have kept the Temple system too central in the New Covenant. By choosing Golgotha, God made it clear that the Temple system was being replaced by Christ’s body, which is the true Temple (John 2:19-21).

Avoiding Syncretism and Confusion

Imagine if Jesus had been crucified on Mount Moriah, where the Jewish Temple stood. This location was not only sacred to Jews but also significant to Christians. Mount Moriah had long been associated with the Mosaic covenant, the priesthood, and the sacrificial system established under the Law. If Christ had died there, it would have been easy for Christians to mistakenly elevate the Temple sacrifices as eternally binding, rather than understanding that Christ was the ultimate fulfillment of all that those sacrifices foreshadowed. The theological implications would have been disastrous. Instead of the clear break that Christianity needed to distinguish itself as the fulfillment of Judaism, the association between Jesus’ sacrifice and the Jewish Temple sacrifices would have led to confusion and potentially syncretism, where people might blend the old Jewish system with the New Covenant.

By separating the locations, God ensured that the two systems—the Mosaic system centered on the Temple and the New Covenant centered on Christ—would remain distinct. Had Golgotha and Mount Moriah overlapped, there might have been a temptation for early Christians (and later followers) to continue to hold the Jewish sacrifices as sacred, alongside Jesus’ ultimate sacrifice. This would have undermined the complete sufficiency of Jesus’ atonement and perpetuated reliance on the Temple system that Jesus came to replace.

Jesus, the Sacrifice for All Nations

Mount Moriah, and by extension, the Temple, was the focal point for Jewish worship. It was where Jews believed God’s presence dwelled, and only the high priest could enter the Holy of Holies once a year on the Day of Atonement (Leviticus 16). By sacrificing Jesus outside the city, God signaled that the sacrifice of His Son was not just for Jews but for the whole world.

As a public place for executions, Golgotha was accessible and visible to all—Jews, Gentiles, Romans, and foreigners alike. This underscores that Jesus’ sacrifice was for “every tribe, language, people, and nation” (Revelation 5:9). If Jesus had been sacrificed within the Temple precincts, the message might have been seen as exclusive to Jews, reinforcing the idea that salvation was only through the Jewish system.

Conclusion

Therefore, the distinct separation between Mount Moriah and Golgotha was no accident. Golgotha, a place of rejection, became the site of salvation, while Moriah, with all its ancient significance, remains the heart of the Old Covenant, which Christ came to fulfill. By choosing Golgotha for the sacrifice of Jesus rather than Mount Moriah, God demonstrated the distinctiveness of Jesus’ sacrifice from the old system. Golgotha symbolizes Jesus as the ultimate sin offering, fulfilling the Law but establishing a New Covenant that transcends the Jewish Temple and its rituals.

Jesus was not sacrificed where kings ruled or priests labored. God, in His wisdom, chose for the ultimate sacrifice to take place in a place of rejection—a place reserved for the cursed and the despised. This site was far more fitting for the One Who came “to seek and save the lost” (Luke 19:10) and to bear the sins of the world. The separation of these two sites prevents any syncretism and keeps the focus on Christ’s sacrifice for all nations, rather than allowing it to be tied to the Jewish sacrificial system. This separation preserves the truth that Jesus’ sacrifice is the end of all sacrifices, and that in Him, all peoples—Jews and Gentiles alike—find their way to God.

Endnotes

1 However, it is crucial to note that when God directed Abraham to offer Isaac in Genesis 22:2, He specified “the land of Moriah,” not necessarily Mount Moriah. This phrase may imply that the broader region in which Jerusalem sits, including Mount Moriah and other nearby elevations, was encompassed within the “land of Moriah.” While some may argue this point, Scripture specifically connects the building of Solomon’s Temple on the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite with the exact site of Abraham’s offering of Isaac. These two events—Abraham’s near-sacrifice of Isaac and Solomon’s Temple construction—are indelibly linked in Scripture (see Genesis 22:2 and 2 Chronicles 3:1). These verses bridge the geographical and theological significance of Mount Moriah as the site for Israel’s Temple and the place of Abraham’s test of faith.

REPRODUCTION & DISCLAIMERS: We are happy to grant permission for this article to be reproduced in part or in its entirety, as long as our stipulations are observed.

 

Where Did “Jehovah” Come From?

Justin Rogers, Ph.D.

Deity of ChristDoctrinal MattersExistence of GodDifficult PassagesHistoricityProphec

 Article in Brief

The English term “Jehovah” is a Medieval attempt to approximate the divine Hebrew name (YHWH). However, no one knows how the name was originally pronounced. Hence, the term “Jehovah” is not more literal, respectful, or accurate than other typical attempts to represent the original term.

[EDITOR’S NOTE: AP auxiliary writer Dr. Rogers is the Director of the Graduate school of Theology and Associate Professor of Bible at Freed-Hardeman University. He holds an M.A. in New Testament from Freed-Hardeman University as well as an M.Phil. and Ph.D. in Hebraic, Judaic, and Cognate Studies from Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion.]

The personal name of God in the Hebrew Bible is יהוה (YHWH). Occurring over 6,800 times in the Old Testament, this name is by far the most common way of referring to God. Translations and traditions have developed a number of ways to represent this name respectfully without crudely spelling out “Yahweh.” English translations have typically chosen “Lord,” following the custom intitated by the Septuagint, and perpetuated in the Latin Vulgate. Normally, the small caps typeset (“lord”) is used in mass-produced English translations to mark YHWH as the underlying Hebrew, as opposed to “Lord,” which normally renders the Hebrew ’ādôn. Some Jewish traditions, however, choose to render YHWH as “HaShem” (literally, “the name”). The ASV (1901) is unique among mainstream translations in opting for “Jehovah” as the preferred translation for YHWH. To be clear, none of these renderings is a translation per se. They are merely reflections of respect for the personal name of God.

Respect for the Name of God

Respect for the personal name of God was an established custom already in the earliest history of Israel. Proper esteem for the Name is one of the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:7; Deuteronomy 5:11), and cursing the Name is a sin punishable by death (Leviticus 24:10-16). After all, one’s name stands in for his or her essence (which is why changes of names are important). With the Bible placing such importance on the name of God, it is no surprise to find Jewish people in the post-biblical period going to great lengths to reverence the name YHWH.

Some Dead Sea Scrolls manuscripts have the name of God in Paleo-Hebrew, a more archaic form of the Hebrew language. Instead of יהוה in the traditional block characters, the name of God in Paleo-Hebrew appears as . The name of God is the only word in those manuscripts written in this fashion—indicating respect. Likewise, when the translators of the Old Testament into Greek rendered the personal name of God, they chose the Greek word κύριος (kyrios), meaning “lord.” This may indicate that Jews as early as the third century B.C. were already pronouncing the Hebrew term אדון (’ādôn), meaning “Lord,” when they encountered YHWH in the text. Fear of mispronouncing the holy, personal name of God perhaps led them to develop the custom of not pronouncing it at all. Consequently, we have no sure idea how the name ought to be pronounced at any stage of the language.

Where Did “Jehovah” Come From?

The word “Jehovah” is a Medieval mistranscription from the Masoretic Hebrew Bible. It takes the consonants of the divine name YHWH and combines them with the vowels of another Hebrew word, ’adōnāy (“my lord”). How such a combination occurred might be worth explaining a little more, so we begin by discussing briefly the consonantal nature of the Hebrew language and the Masoretic vowel additions.

Hebrew is a language of consonants. Vowel sounds are spoken of course, but are not traditionally written. This custom dates to ancient times. As a result, we are unable to determine exactly how the Hebrew language in the Old Testament era was pronounced. Concern, however, to preserve the precise pronunciation of the text led a group of Jewish scribes in the Middle Ages, known as the Masoretes, to invent and apply vowel symbols to the traditional consonantal text. The two oldest manuscripts of the Masoretic Hebrew Bible—the Aleppo and Leningrad codices—feature these vowel markings.

Jewish scribes were very traditional, and thus scrupulously copied the text exactly as they received it, even if they were certain they were passing along an erroneous reading. When the Masoretes encountered a text they believed to be corrupt, or one that made no sense when read publicly, they marked the word or phrase with a marginal correction known as the qerî, literally meaning “it is read.” What was copied in the body of the text came to be known as the ketîv (“it is written”). When one read the Hebrew text publicly, he was supposed to replace the ketîv with the qerî for the sake of accuracy, or, in the case of the name of God, respect. The name of God is the most common ketîv/qerî combination in the Hebrew Bible. Because the name of God is so common, however, the Masoretes simply placed the vowels of the qerî around the ketîv rather than utilizing the marginal system.

The Masoretic manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible reflect the ancient custom of pronouncing ’adōnāy (ah-dohn-EYE) as the qerî in place of YHWH as the ketîv. The term ’adōnāy is a fitting choice of qerî. First, the noun ’ādôn occurs 775 times in the Old Testament, over 400 times in reference to God. Second, the suffix –āy is a marker of the first person singular (in address), making the qerî appear as a personal claim on the part of the reader. In other words, the public reader of Hebrew Scripture is understood to mean “My Lord said to Moses,” or “Let them praises give my Lord.” This was intended as a symbol of respect, but the need for a more literal rendering of the name of God than the standard “Lord” created the desire to use this made-up Masoretic term in English transliteration.

The word “Jehovah” first appears in A.D. 1381. It is easy to understand where it came from. Someone simply transcribed the Masoretic qerî into a European language. In other words, someone simply took the vowels of ’adōnay and placed them around the consonants of YHWH. This yields the name “Jehovah,” more or less. The Aleppo and Leningrad Codices of the Hebrew Bible write the nonsensical יְהוָה (YeHVāH), which takes the vowels of ’adōnay (except for the ō) and places them around the consonants of YHWH. They attempt to preserve in writing a tradition of reading.

English readers are probably wondering exactly how YeHoWaH becomes Jehovah. To explain, the Y in English represents the sound J in certain other languages. The raised e is a “half-vowel,” and represents a hurried sound of barely distinguishable vocalic value (this is why ’adōnāy starts with an a, but the Masoretes point YHWH with an e). This “shewa,” as it is often called, is transcribed as e in the European languages. H is H. The long ō sound is reinserted (absent in the Masoretic qerî) from ’adōnāy. W is pronounced in many languages as the English v. The ā of ’adōnāy is represented as a. And, again, H is H. Taken together, this yields the word “Jehovah.”

The name Jehovah fell into fashion in early English translations. Tyndale, the Geneva Bible, and others used the term Jehovah, at least some of the time, to represent the Hebrew YHWH. The term occurs only four times in the King James Version of the Bible (Exodus 6:3; Psalm 83:18; Isaiah 12:2; 26:4). A mixture of “Jehovah” and “Lord” remained consistent in most English translations. The English Revised Version (1885), and its North American counterpart the American Standard Version (1901), choose “Jehovah” as its standard rendering of יהוה (YHWH), a name it uses over 6,800 times. The New World Translation of the Jehovah’s Witnesses also consistently uses the name Jehovah. More recent translations have not followed suit, preferring “lord” to “Jehovah.”

The question arises, then, is “Jehovah” the real name of God? The answer is a clear and firm “no.” First, the Masoretes themselves would not allege “Jehovah” represents the name of God. As we have discussed, the ketîv is inspired and sacred, whereas the qerî is a Masoretic protection on the way the text ought to be read. By adding the vowels of ’adōnāy to YHWH, they never intended to create a new word, but to mark a respectful reading of the personal name of God.

Second, the vowel sounds the Masoretes added to the text represent a reading tradition much later than the biblical text itself. To get a sense of how much pronunciation can change in this length of time, watch online videos of the Canterbury Tales read with contemporary English pronunciation. Does this sound anything like modern English? Even if Hebrew pronunciation remained remarkably static over that period of time (a period of 1,000 years!), the fact that the name was not transmitted with vowels renders certainty in pronunciation simply impossible. The Masoretes preserved a reading tradition passed down in their time, not necessarily one dating to biblical times.

Third, the Masoretes did not actually give the name Jehovah or its Hebrew equivalent. Remember, the Masoretes omit the ō vowel from the qerî, yielding the nonsensical Hebrew word YeHWāH (it is nonsensical since every Hebrew consonant must have an accompanying vowel; the middle “H” does not). So, the builders of the make-believe word “Jehovah” added something the Masoretic Hebrew does not have in the first place.

Conclusion

The term Jehovah is less than 700 years old. Even its Hebrew near-equivalent can date no earlier than the Masoretic application of vowels to the consonantal text in the Middle Ages. The same holds true for the spelling “Yahweh,” although scholars feel confident this form is much closer to the original pronunciation (based partially on ancient transliterations). That said, is it more respectful to use the name Jehovah? Some think so. Those who stringently defend the use of the name Jehovah argue their position on the basis of its being more literal and more original. However, we have observed that the term “Jehovah” is neither original to the Bible nor to the Masoretic tradition. And it is simply inaccurate to use an English transliteration of a Hebrew word that was never intended to be pronounced in the first place. The Jewish tradition is careful not to misuse the personal name of God, distancing itself with epithets such as “the Lord” or “the Name.” A biblical Israelite, if transported to modern times, would not understand what “Jehovah” even meant since it isn’t actually a Hebrew word. The name Jehovah is no more literal, no more respectful, and no more accurate than the more commonly used lord.

---

REPRODUCTION & DISCLAIMERS: We are happy to grant permission for this article to be reproduced in part or in its entirety, as long as our stipulations are observed.

Reproduction Stipulations→

 

Human Suffering

Eric Lyons

Creation vs. EvolutionExistence of GodAtheismAtheism

All one has to do is walk through the halls of the nearest hospital or mental institution to see people of all ages suffering from various diseases and illnesses. Suffering is everywhere, and thus such questions as the following inevitably arise. “If there is a God, why am I afflicted with this illness?” “If there is a God, why was my son not allowed to see his sixteenth birthday?” “If there is a God, why are my parents afflicted with Alzheimer’s disease?” These and hundreds of similar questions have echoed from the human heart for millennia. They are as old as the first tear and as recent as the latest newscast.

For many people, the existence of pain and suffering serves as a great obstacle to belief in God. Skeptics and infidels, both past and present, have held that the existence of evil is an embarrassment for those who believe in God. One philosopher, J.L. Mackie, in an article titled “Evil and Omnipotence,” set out to show “not that religious beliefs lack rational support, but that they are positively irrational,” and “that the several parts of the essential theological doctrine are inconsistent with one another.”

How do theists reconcile the presence of suffering with the existence of an omnipotent and all-loving God? Some have argued that illness and other kinds of suffering are illusionary and spring from a false belief. Others have maintained that no explanation is necessary, because mere mortals should not have to justify the ways of God to men. But most Christians acknowledge that suffering is real and that it is a problem that deserves careful attention. Even though man cannot explain in specific detail all of the reasons for human suffering, the Bible gives enough answers to allow man to come to grips with the problem in general. Contrary to what many in this world believe, there are a number of logical reasons why people experience mental and physical pain. One of the main reasons is rooted in the fact that God is love (1 John 4:8), and that love allows freedom of choice.

Adam and Eve were presented with a choice in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 2:16-17). Israel was given the choice of serving the Lord or foreign gods (Joshua 24:15). Even today, man is a free moral agent with the ability to make his own choices (Revelation 22:17). God did not create man as a scientist creates a robot that automatically follows his master’s instructions without the choice of doing otherwise. Would God be loving if He created intelligent beings and then programmed them to slavishly serve Him? God granted mankind free will as an expression of His love. Sadly, man frequently brings suffering upon himself because of the wrong decisions he makes. The apostle Peter wrote: “But let none of you suffer as a murderer, a thief, an evildoer, or as a busybody in other people’s matters” (1 Peter 4:15, emp. added). When people suffer the consequences of their own wrong choices, they have no one to blame but themselves.

Man also suffers because of the personal wrong choices of others. If God allows one person freedom of choice, He must allow everyone that freedom to be consistent in His love for the world (God is no respecter of persons—Acts 10:34). Uriah the Hittite suffered because of David’s sins (2 Samuel 11), and ultimately was killed because of David’s attempt to hide the wrong decisions he had made. All of Egypt suffered because Pharaoh decided to keep the Israelites in Egypt when Moses told him to let them go (Exodus 7-12). Today, families may suffer because a father is thrown in jail for drunk driving. In such a case, he is the cause of the family’s suffering. If a man smokes all of his life and then eventually dies at an early age because of lung cancer, both he and his family suffer because of his decision to smoke. God is not to blame for man’s personal wrong choices, nor is He to blame for the wrong decisions that others have made.

We today also suffer on occasion because of the personal wrong choices of former generations. If man is able to reap benefits from the work of former generations (medical discoveries, technological advances, etc.), then it is only logical that he be able to suffer the consequences of the sins of former generations. [Although man does not inherit the sin of Adam, he does suffer because of the choice Adam made to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.] Who is partly to blame for millions starving in third-world countries today? Answer: Some of their ancestors. Years ago, because people accepted the false doctrine of reincarnation, they began teaching that it was wrong to eat cows because they might be eating a long-dead-but-now-reincarnated relative. The doctrine of reincarnation has deprived millions of people throughout the world of good health. Is God to blame when people will not eat the meat that could give them nourishment?

When one experiences suffering in his life, it often is because he has chosen to sin. He might be suffering the consequences of his own wrong decisions, the wrong decisions of others, or the wrong decisions of former generations. But regardless of the reason for the suffering he endures, God is not to blame.

REPRODUCTION & DISCLAIMERS: We are happy to grant permission for this article to be reproduced in part or in its entirety, as long as our stipulations are observed.

 

The Goldilocks Principle: The Earth Is Designed for Us

Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

Creation vs. EvolutionExistence of GodDesign in the Universe

Do you recall the story of Goldilocks from your youth? She struggled as she sought the right porridge, chair, and bed, but in the end, her discoveries were “just right.” The Goldilocks Principle in secular cosmology is a recognition by scientists that the Earth appears to be “just right” for life to exist on it. Leading science magazines routinely run articles updating their audiences on the hunt for other Goldilocks planets with just the right conditions for life to exist upon them as it does on Earth. The Earth appears to be designed for us.

Atheistic philosopher Paul Ricci summed up the Teleological Argument for the Existence of God well when he said, “[I]t’s true that everything designed has a designer…. ‘Everything designed has a designer’ is an analytically true statement.”1 There are an infinite number of examples of design that present themselves to us when we study the natural realm—a problem for Ricci and his atheistic colleagues, to be sure. Manuel Canales, Matthew Chwastyk, and Eve Conant wrote an article in National Geographic titled “One Strange Rock: 13 Things that Make Life on Earth Possible.”2 “Earth is well equipped as a planet and ideally placed in our solar system and galaxy to support life as we know it,” they explain.3 What kinds of features make Earth so special?

• If the Earth’s rotation axis was tilted differently…: “A change in the rotation axis of the Earth…would be catastrophic. The number of the seasons would change and their duration. If the rotation axis became parallel to the orbital plane, as for Uranus, we could have winter in the Northern hemisphere for 6 months followed by summer. The Sun would set on the entire Northern hemisphere and not rise again for 6 months.”4
• If the Earth was spinning faster…: “Hurricanes will spin faster…and there will be more energy in them.”5 A faster rotation speed by only 10% would translate to so much water bulging around the equator, that all equatorial land would be flooded while the sea level at the poles would lower.6 Human and animal life would be forced to live closer to the poles, which would result in catastrophic extinctions.
• If the Earth’s orbit was closer to the Sun…: If the average distance from the Sun was “reduced by only about three-tenths of a percent,” disastrous atmospheric changes would occur, including “sea-level rise, increases in extreme weather, species extinctions and agricultural disruptions.”7 As it makes its elliptical path around the Sun, the Earth bends from its straight course “only one ninth of an inch” every 18½ miles.8 “If the orbit changed by one-tenth of an inch every 18 miles, our orbit would be vastly larger and we would all freeze to death. One-eighth of an inch? We would all be incinerated.”9 In fact, the Earth’s perfect distance from the Sun is called the “Goldilocks zone,” “where it’s not too close and not too far from the sun for water to be liquid on its surface.”10 Earth’s temperature is “not too hot or too cold.”11
• If the Earth had less water…: About 75% of the entire area of the Earth is covered by water. If there was less water on the Earth, it would suffer from the drastic temperature changes seen in deserts—extremely hot during the day and extremely cold during the night. Most of the Earth does not have this problem, due in large part to the fact that the Earth has so much water on it. Water has a high specific heat capacity, which means that water can hold a lot of heat—way more than almost any other natural substance on Earth. Water can store a lot of heat or lose a lot of heat without its temperature being drastically changed, causing it to act like an air conditioning unit for the Earth, keeping its temperature relatively constant. A different liquid other than water or less water would make Earth inhospitable for life.
• If the Earth was like other planets…: Citing the work of University of Washington’s Peter Ward, Stanford University’s Kate Maher, NASA’s Karina Yager, and the University of Idaho’s Jason Barnes, Canales and his colleagues highlighted that Earth “recycles life-friendly carbon over time,” has an “ozone layer to block harmful rays,” “a big moon to stabilize our axial wobble,” “varied surfaces [to] support many life-forms,” and a “magnetic field” that “deflects solar tempests.” Earth is “situated safely away from gas giants”—if it were closer, their “powerful gravity could cause disastrous fluctuations in Earth’s distance from the sun.” The star of our solar system—the Sun—“is a stable, long-lasting star,” as opposed to less massive, allegedly younger stars that are “often unstable and are prone to blasting their planets with bursts of radiation.” Earth has “the right stuff to host a dynamic core” (i.e., sufficient radioactive elements to generate a “churning core” and protective magnetic field that could, theoretically, last for billions of years). Earth has “giant planets that protect us from afar,” like Jupiter, whose size and gravity protect “Earth from overly frequent collisions that might trigger extinctions.” Zooming out further to the scale of the galaxy, we observe that “our sun offers protection from galactic debris,” “our galactic path steers us clear of hazards,” and “our location is far from stellar crowds,” reducing the “risks to Earth from gravitational tugs, gamma-ray bursts, or collapsing stars called supernovae.”12 Truly Earth is just right for us—as though it was made for humans.

Dozens of such examples could be illustrated.13 In the words of famous skeptic and science writer Michael Shermer, who has a monthly column in Scientific American, “The design inference comes naturally. The reason people think that a Designer created the world is because it looks designed.”14 Agreed.

Endnotes

1 Paul Ricci (1986), Fundamentals of Critical Thinking (Lexington, MA: Ginn Press), p. 190.

2 Manuel Canales, Matthew Chwastyk, and Eve Conant (2018), “One Strange Rock: 13 Things That Make Life on Earth Possible,” National Geographic, 233[3]:78-87.

3 Ibid., p. 78.

4 Sten Odenwald (no date), “What Would Happen if the Rotation Axis of the Earth Changed?” NASA Image Education Center, https://image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry/ask/q278.html.

5 Sarah Fecht (2017), “What Would Happen if Earth Started to Spin Faster?” Popular Science, https://www.popsci.com/earth-spin-faster.

6 Ibid.

7 Victoria Roberts (2017), “Even Tiny Changes in Earth’s Orbit Would Yield Global Catastrophe,” The New York Times, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/24/science/earth-orbit-sun-catastrophe.html.

8 David Peck Todd (1906), A New Astronomy (New York: American Book Company), p. 383.

9 “Everyday Science” (1981), Science Digest, 89[1]:124.

10 Canales, et al., p. 81; cf. J.R. Minkel (2007), “All Wet? Astronomers Claim Discovery of Earth-like Planet,” Scientific American, April 24, https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/all-wet-astronomers-claim/.

11 Canales, et al., p. 81.

12 Canales, et al.

13 See the various “Design” topics in the “Existence of God” category on the Apologetics Press Web site—www.apologeticspress.org.

14 Michael Shermer (2007), Why Darwin Matters: The Case Against Intelligent Design (New York, NY: Henry Holt), Kindle edition, p. 65, ital. in orig.

REPRODUCTION & DISCLAIMERS: We are happy to grant permission for this article to be reproduced in part or in its entirety, as long as our stipulations are observed.