Extraterrestrials - What Does the Bible Indicate?

Astronomers have not discovered life of any kind in our solar system or in the cosmos beyond. Yet after considering the overwhelming size of the Universe, some have concluded that the odds are great that we are not alone. Also, some influential religious figures have insisted that God would not create any world without purpose and that all habitable worlds must therefore be inhabited.

But since no life has been discovered beyond our world thus far, are astronomers on solid ground when they assert that the universe is teeming with populated worlds? What does the Bible indicate on this matter? According to the Bible, is anyone out there? 

Spirit Creatures

According to the Bible, extraterrestrial life not only exists but exists in abundance. (Rev. 5:11; Matt. 26:53) It is more complex, more interesting, and more believable than anything that evolutionists, science-fiction writers, and moviemakers have dreamed up. After all, an extraterrestrial is simply a being who originates outside this earth and its atmosphere.

Scientists wonder if there might be life-forms beyond our ability to detect. The Bible assures us that such beings do indeed exist. But they are not the products of evolution. Like all life in the universe, in whatever form, they came from the Source of life, Jehovah God. He is a spirit Being, and he has created myriads of other spirit beings of different types: angels, cherubs, and seraphs. They perform different work and functions in his intricate heavenly organization. (Psalm 104:4; Hebrews 12:22; Revelation 19:14)

What About Extraterrestrial Intelligent Physical Beings on Other Planets?

The Bible also gives us some indication as to whether or not other intelligent physical beings exist beyond the Earth. The Bible indicates that it is very unlikely that God at this point has created intelligent physical creatures on any planets other than our own. How so?

If God did create such intelligent physical beings, He most likely did so before He created Adam and Eve. Such beings either remained faithful to their Creator, or like Adam and Eve, they sinned and fell into imperfection.

But if they became imperfect, they needed a redeemer. One essayist put it: “One has this dreadful thought that on Friday [the day Jesus Christ was executed], every Friday, somewhere in the universe Jesus is being hanged high for someone’s sins.” But that is not Scriptural. The Bible tells us that Jesus “died with reference to sin once for all time.” (Romans 6:10)

But what if these beings had remained perfect? Well, when Adam and Eve sinned, they were, in effect, questioning God’s right to rule over a world of intelligent physical beings. If another planet existed at that time, a world full of intelligent physical beings who were living harmoniously and loyally under God’s rule, it would be reasonable for them to have been called in as witnesses to testify that God’s rule does indeed work.

So in this context, the Bible indicates that, considering the uniqueness of Jesus Christ, Earth is the only planet to which the Creator sent his only-begotten Son to become a man and die sacrificially to recover the planet’s inhabitants from sin and its penalty death. The Bible also shows that the Earth will be the only planet on which God, by means of his Son Jesus Christ, will have fought the ‘war of the great day of God the Almighty’ to show his power over all his enemies in heaven and on earth and to vindicate himself as the Universal Sovereign. (Rev. 16:14)

What About Non-intelligent Life on other Planets?

The Bible gives us no indication as to whether God created any non-intelligent life (i.e. animals, insects, vegetation, microbes) on other planets. Some subscribe to the theory of Abiogenesis which is defined as "living organisms (that) can arise spontaneously from inanimate matter". It is the idea that life arose naturally - by itself - from chemical compounds. However, if one truly considers the enormous odds of life spontaneously arising even under the most favorable of circumstances, it should give one pause to this theory. Scientists Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe estimate that the odds against life’s vital enzymes forming by chance is 1 in 10 to the 40,000th power (1 with 40,000 zeros after it). Scientists Feinberg and Shapiro go still further. In their book Life Beyond Earth, they put the odds against the material in an organic soup ever taking the first rudimentary steps toward life at 1 1 in 10 to the 1,000,000th power (1 with a million zeros after it). It also should be noted that Science, with even the best labs and equipment cannot even replicate on purpose what they claim happened by accident on Earth long ago. Certainly if there is any non-intelligent extraterrestrial life out there it is because God originally created it and not through the process of abiogenesis.

Would God Create The Universe Just to Accommodate Humans?

But if we are the only intelligent physical beings in the known Universe, does that mean, then, that God created all those countless billions of suns (and presumably billions of planets) for no purpose? Why, one may ask, would God create the entire Universe seemingly just to accommodate humans on Earth?

But consider, is it really so difficult to believe that God created the entire universe just for our benefit and wonder? After all, despite the enormity of the universe, it is still 'just' the mere "works of [His] fingers"! (Ps. 8:1) His vast power is so staggering to the imagination that His physical creation is but "the fringes of his ways". (Job 26:14) Putting it in this perspective, creating the entire universe just for us is comparatively insignificant when compared to how much God gave us in another way by means of allowing His own Son to die because of His love for us. (John 3:16,17)

But what would be the point of creating all of those countless billions of suns and planets if humans aren't even able to visit, explore or utilize them? First, while we understand that, considering the uniqueness of Jesus Christ, the earth is the only inhabited planet in the universe right now, what the future holds for us we do not know.

Another thing to consider is that the Bible points out that God "has put a sense of eternity in people's minds." (Ecclesiastes 3:11) - God's Word Translation. Because of this, God’s creation is so rich and complex that it constantly intrigues us and fills us with awe of Him. The universe is so grand that it serves as a constant reminder of how much there is to be learned from the One who created it and a desire to do so. It serves as a testament of "His eternal power and Godship" and gives us a glimpse of His "invisible [qualities]". (Rom. 1:20) NWT. Trying to grasp the sheer immensity of the Universe can, when seriously pondered, promote an overwhelming admiration and gratitude toward the One who has also given so much in another way by means of His Son on our behalf. (John 3:16,17) No doubt we could begin to feel as did the psalmist who wrote: “Many things you yourself have done, O Jehovah my God, even your wonderful works and your thoughts toward us; there is none to be compared to you. . . . They have become more numerous than I can recount.” (Psalm 40:5) NWT

(For much more concerning Extraterrestrials, see the 4/8/90 Awake!)

Why is Jesus called "Mighty God" at Isa. 9:6?

"For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder; and his name shall be called Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace." (Isa. 9:6) 

Pretty much all Christians accept this son as being the Christ.  Some will tell you that since the meaning of this symbolic name includes the words "Mighty God, Eternal Father," then Jesus is the Mighty God and the Eternal Father.

But there are at least two other ways this personal name has been interpreted by reputable Bible scholars. (1) The titles found within the name (e.g., "Mighty God") are intended in their secondary, subordinate senses. (2) the titles within the name are meant to praise God the Father, not the Messiah.

First, (1) there is the possibility that the words (or titles) found in the literal meaning of the name apply directly to the Messiah all right but in a subordinate sense.  In other words, Christ is "a mighty god" in the same sense that God's angels were called "gods" and the judges of Israel were called "gods" by God himself (also by Jesus - John 10:34, 35), and Moses was called "a god" by Jehovah himself.  This is the interpretation of Is. 9:6 by the WT Society at this time.

Yes, men and angels were called gods (elohim - Hebrew; theos - Greek) in a proper, but subordinate, sense by Jehovah and his inspired Bible writers.  Although they were given this elevated title in a proper sense (not false gods), it was obviously with the clear understanding that it in no way implied a comparison with the Most High, Only True God.  (A bank employee calling his boss, the head of the bank, "the president" would certainly not imply an equality of position, power, etc. with "The President" [of the USA].)
  
The word "god" as understood by those who used that term simply meant a "mighty one" - see Young's Concordance.  In fact the word "Mighty" as found at Is. 9:6 (Gibbor in the original Hebrew) is also applied to the angels at Ps. 103:20 (see a modern concordance such as the New American Standard Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible).  It is interesting that the ancient translation of the Old Testament that Jesus frequently quoted, the Septuagint Version, renders Is. 9:6: "and his [the Messiah's] name is called the Angel [aggeloV, messenger] of Great Counsel."   

The very early (ca. 160 A.D.) Christian Justin Martyr quoted Is. 9:6 also as "The Angel of mighty counsel" - "Dialogue With Trypho," ch. LXXVI.

So, just as "Lord" was applied to anyone in authority: angels, masters over servants, husbands, etc., so, too, could "god" be applied to anyone (good or bad) who was considered a "mighty person."  Of course only one person could be called the "Most High God," or the "Only True God," or the "Almighty God"! 

In the same way, "Eternal Father" could mean that the Messiah is one who has been given eternal life and through him God has brought eternal life to many others.  (We might make the comparison that the Heavenly Father has brought men to life in this world through their earthly fathers.)  This would be intended in a clearly subordinate sense and not to take anything away from the ultimate honor, glory, worship, etc. due the Most High God and Father in heaven - Jehovah.

At any rate, even trinitarians do not confuse the two separate persons of the Father and the Son. They do not say the Son is the Father.  They say the Father and the Son are two separate individual persons who are equally "God"!

Therefore, since we obviously cannot take "Eternal Father" in the literal sense to mean that Jesus is the Father, we cannot take the rest of that same name (esp. `Mighty God') in its literal highest sense and say that Jesus is Mighty God, etc., either.

In addition to the distinct possibility of the use of the secondary subordinate meanings of the titles such as "God/god" as explained by Bible language scholars, we can see by the actual renderings of some trinitarian Bible translators at Is. 9:6 that they believe such subordinate meanings were intended by the inspired Bible writer.

Instead of "Mighty God," Dr. James Moffatt translated this part of Is. 9:6 as "a divine hero;" Byington has "Divine Champion;" The New English Bible has "In Battle Godlike;" The Catholic New American Bible (1970 and 1991 revision) renders it "God-Hero;" and the REB says "Mighty Hero."  Even that most-respected of Biblical Hebrew language experts, Gesenius, translated it "mighty hero" - p. 45, Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon.

Also, The NIV Study Bible, in a f.n. for Ps 45:6, tells us:

"In this psalm, which praises the king and especially extols his `splendor and majesty' (v. 3), it is not unthinkable that he was called `god' as a title of honor [cf.  Isa 9:6]."  (Bracketed information included in original footnote.  Emphasis is mine)
    
In addition, Rotherham has rendered "Eternal Father" as "father of progress," and the New English Bible translates it: "father of a wide realm."

The above-mentioned Bible translations by trinitarian scholars which apply the words in the name at Is. 9:6 in a subordinate sense directly to Jesus clearly show that they do not believe this scripture implies an equality with Jehovah the Father.

........................
 
And second (2), another way competent Bible scholars have interpreted the meaning of this name is with the understanding that it (as with many, if not most, of the other Israelites' personal names) does not apply directly to the Messiah (as we have already seen with "Elijah," "Abijah," etc.) but is, instead, a statement praising the Father, Jehovah God.

Personal names in the ancient Hebrew and Greek are often somewhat cryptic to us today. The English Bible translator must fill in the missing minor words (especially in names composed of two or more Hebrew words) such as "my," "is," "of," etc. in whatever way he thinks best in order to make sense for us today in English.

For instance, two of the best Bible concordances (Young's and Strong's) and a popular trinitarian Bible dictionary (Today's Dictionary of the Bible) differ greatly on the exact meaning of many Biblical personal names because of those "minor" words which must be added to bring out the intended meaning.
 
Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, for example, says the name "Elimelech" (which is literally just "God King") means "God of (the) King."  Young's Analytical Concordance says it means "God is King."  Today's Dictionary of the Bible says it means " God his king" -  p. 206, Bethany House Publ., 1982.
 
Those missing minor words that the translator must supply at his own discretion can often make a vital difference!  - For example, the footnote for Gen. 17:5 in The NIV Study Bible: The name `Abram' "means `Exalted Father,' probably in reference to God (i.e., `[God is] Exalted Father')."- Brackets in original.

This is why another name the Messiah is to be called by at Jer. 23:6 is rendered, `The LORD [YHWH] IS Our Righteousness' in the following Bibles: RSV; NRSV; NEB; NJB;  JPS (Margolis, ed.); Tanakh; Byington; AT; and  ASV (footnote).  Of course other translations render it more literally by calling the Messiah  "The LORD [YHWH] Our Righteousness" to help support a `Jesus is God' doctrine.  Some of these (such as the NASB) actually render the very same name at Jer. 33:16 as "The LORD [or Jehovah] Is Our Righteousness"! - [bracketed information is mine]. 

(Unfortunately for those who wish to use this name at Jer. 23:16 as evidence of Jesus being Jehovah, at Jer. 33:16 it is also given to a city!)

Therefore, the personal name at Is. 9:6 has been honestly translated as: "And his name is called: Wonderful in counsel is God the Mighty, the everlasting Father, the Ruler of peace" - The Holy Scriptures, JPS Version (Margolis, ed.) to show that it is intended to praise the God of the Messiah who performs great things through the Messiah.

Also, An American Translation (by trinitarians Smith and Goodspeed) says:
"Wonderful counselor is God almighty, Father forever, Prince of peace."
 
Of course it could also be honestly translated: "Wonderful Counselor and Mighty God is the Eternal Father of the Prince of Peace."
   
And the Tanakh by the JPS, 1985, translates it:

[a]"The Mighty God is planning grace;
[b] The Eternal Father [is] a peaceable ruler."
 
This latter translation seems particularly appropriate since it is in the form of a parallelism.  Not only was the previous symbolic personal name introduced by Isaiah at Is. 8:1 a  parallelism ("Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz" means  [a]"quick to the plunder;   [b] swift to the spoil" - NIV footnote) but the very introduction to this Messianic name at Is. 9:6 is itself a parallelism: [a]"For unto us a child is born;  [b] unto us a son is given."  It would, therefore, be appropriate to find that this name, too, was in the form of a parallelism as translated by the Tanakh above.

So it is clear, even to a number of trinitarian scholars, that Is. 9:6 does not imply that Jesus is Jehovah God.

For much more, see:

Isa. 9:6 "Mighty God, Eternal Father" (Examining the Trinity)

Isa. 9:6 - NWT (Defending the New World Translation)

NAME - “Jesus,” “Immanuel,” and Is. 9:6 (Examining the Trinity)

BOWGOD (God and gods) (Examining the Trinity)

Does Isa. 9:6 prove that Jesus is God? (SFBT)

One God in Three? (Pastor Russell; Heading: "No Trinity in the “Old Testament”')

How does the Codex Sinaiticus render Is. 9:6? (JWQ&A)

How is translated Isaiah 9:6 in old Aramaic Targums? (JWQ&A)

Or see the Scripture Index.

Curiosity - Beneficial when Balanced

Concerning our spiritual advancement, 1 Tim. 4:15 encourages us to "Ponder over these things; be absorbed in them, that your advancement may be manifest to all [persons]."

Have you ever seen or read someone express slight irritation toward another person's questions and observations by saying that they are being a little simplistic? But really, shouldn't we truly appreciate those who desire to know more about any or all aspects of things wholesome and righteous? There exists a wide variety of interests in a wide variety of people. Some enjoy pondering different aspects of the Bible at different paces. As long as the curiosity and interest is there, certainly we can be pleased in the fact that those who sincerely ask these questions are making a sincere effort in our shared goal of continually trying to "find the very knowledge of God". (Prov. 2:5)

Curiosity can be very beneficial, but there also exists the need to (like everything else in life) balance it. A highly recommended article that explorers this subject further can be found in the 2/1/87 Watchtower; "Do You Have an Inquiring Mind?", a small excerpt of which can be found below:

"CURIOSITY is a "desire to know." A strong curiosity makes a person eager to learn, to find out about things. Jehovah implanted this eagerness in us, so that almost from the moment of birth we are driven to explore the world about us. Our very existence is a never-ending learning process. If we are to become mature, well-adjusted adults, we need to gratify our curiosity, our desire to find things out.

"This is especially true on a spiritual level. Our prospects for eternal life depend upon our learning about Jehovah God. (John 17:3) The Bible tells us that he wants us to inquire about him, to "grope for him and really find him." (Acts 17:23, 24, 27) If we suppress our curiosity or fail to allow it to develop, our advancement will be very slow. In fact, a lack of interest in spiritual things can be fatal.—Psalm 119:33, 34; Hosea 4:6.

....

The Need for Balance

"So, like many other things in life, our curiosity can be a blessing or a curse. Properly directed, it can uncover priceless gems of knowledge that bring joy and refreshment. A healthy curiosity about our Creator, his will, and his purposes can be profoundly satisfying and beneficial. An unbridled, morbid curiosity can lure us into a morass of speculation and human theories wherein genuine faith and godly devotion cannot survive. Hence, when your curiosity threatens to lead you into something questionable, "be on your guard that you may not be led away . . . and fall from your own steadfastness."—2 Peter 3:17."

Codex - Links to Information

Codex
From Scroll to Codex - How the Bible Became a Book (WBTS)

The Early Christian Codex (pastorrussell)

Codex Sinaiticus
The Codex Sinaiticus Website (One of the oldest complete (or nearly complete) manuscripts of the NT)

Rescuing the Codex Sinaiticus (pastorrussell)

Codex Alexandrinus
The fourth volume (NT and Clementine epistles) of the full-sized black and white facsimile of the manuscript, produced in 1879-83 by the British Library (The Center For The Study of NT Manuscripts; one of the oldest complete (or nearly complete) manuscripts of the NT.)

Codex Vaticanus
Images From the 1868 (pseudo-) Facsimile (The Center For The Study of NT Manuscripts; one of the oldest complete (or nearly complete) manuscripts of the NT.)

What Does the Hebrew Word 'Qanah' Mean at Prov. 8:22?

"Jehovah himself produced (qanah) me as the beginning of his way, the earliest of his achievements of long ago." (Prov. 8:22) NWT

The Hebrew word 'qanah', can mean either to "produce, aquire, create" or "possess". Context is key in finding out which one it means.

Many Bible commentators agree that the Son is referred to as wisdom personified here. (See: Does "Wisdom" at Prov. 8:22-30 refer to the Messiah, and does it say that he was created?; SFBT) Bibles which are biased toward the Trinity do not want to render it as "Produce" or something similar because that would mean that Jesus has a beginning, and that would contradict the Trinity doctrine.
 
Yet because the context of Prov. 8:22-31 so overwhelmingly supports the translation of the word 'qanah' as "create" (See: Prov. 8:22-30 "Wisdom" and Christ; Examining the Trinity), even scores of trinitarian bibles have decided to render it as such. Notice how these trinitarian Bibles reluctantly render qanah at Prov. 8:22):

(1) "[Jehovah] created me at the beginning of his work" - RSV;

(2) "[Jehovah] created me" - NRSV;

(3) "[Jehovah] made me" - MLB;

(4) "Yahweh created me" - JB; "Yahweh created me" - NJB;

(5) "[Jehovah] created me" - NEB;

(6) "[Jehovah] created me" - REB;

(7) "I was the first thing made" - ETRV;

(8) "[Jehovah] created me as the first of his creations" - Lamsa;

(9) "[Jehovah] created me first of all" - GNB;

(10) "[Jehovah] formed me as the first of his works" - AT;

(11) "[Jehovah] formed me first of his creation" - Mo;

(12) "Jehovah framed me first" - Byington;

(13) "[Jehovah] created me" - The Reader's Digest Bible;

(14) "[Jehovah] brought me forth as the first of his works" - The NIV Study Bible. It also explains in a footnote for Prov. 8:22: "brought...forth. The Hebrew for this verb is also used in Ge 4:1; 14:19, 22 (`creator')." - Zondervan, 1985;

(15) "[Jehovah] made me the beginning of his ways for his works" - The Apostles Bible;

(16) "[Jehovah] made me as the start of his way, the first of his works in the past. - BBE;

(17) "Yahweh created me first, at the beginning of his works" - Christian Community Bible;

(18) "[Jehovah] made me as the beginning of his way, the first of his ancient works" - The Complete Jewish Bible;

(19) "[Jehovah] made me at the beginning of His creation, before His works of long ago" - The Holman Christian Standard Bible;

(20) "[Jehovah] created me as the first of his creations, before all of his works. - Peshitta - Lamsa Translation;

(21) "[Jehovah] sovereignly made me—the first, the basic— before he did anything else." - The Message;

(22) "[Jehovah] created me as the beginning of his works, before his deeds of long ago." - NET;

(23) "I, wisdom, was with [Jehovah] when he began his work, long before he made anything else. 23 I was created in the very beginning, even before the world began." - New Century Version;

(24) "[Jehovah] created me as the first of his works, before his acts of long ago." - New International Reader's Version;

(25) "[Jehovah] made me at the beginning of His work, before His first works long ago." - New Life Bible;

(26) "[Jehovah] formed me from the beginning, before he created anything else. - New Living Translation;

(27) "Jehovah created me in the beginning of his way, before his works of antiquity." - New Simplified Bible;

(28) "[Jehovah] created me as the head of His ways, to perform all of His works" - 2001 Translation.

For more, see:
Wisdom (Prov. 8:22-31) Links to Information

Why Don't Jehovah's Witnesses Celebrate St. Valentine's Day?

Jehovah's Witnesses only celebrate the one event that Jesus commanded his followers. The memorial of his death (1 Cor. 11:23-26). They also celebrate other events which are referred to favorably in the Scriptures such as marriages, anniversaries, the birth of a baby, graduations and many other happy occasions.

But why don't Jehovah's Witnesses celebrate St. Valentine's Day? Because Jehovah's Witnesses take their worship very seriously and insist upon keeping their worship of God undefiled (James 1:27), there are two main reasons why Jehovah's Witnesses do not celebrate St. Valentine's Day:

1.) Pagan ceremonies honoring pagan gods are mixed in with St. Valentine's Day's origins.

2.) The Bible makes it clear that there is to be no veneration or adoration of Saints as intercessors with God. Our approach to the Father can only be through Jesus. (John 14:6, 14; 1 Tim. 2:5)

St. Valentine's Day - It's Pagan Associations

It would be wrong to incorporate anything used for pagan worship, into our worship or related activities. Holidays, for example, are "Holy Days" and are a part of "worship", by their very name.

Notice what the publication How It Started had to say about St. Valentine's Day on pages 46-47:

"Ancient Romans placed great stress upon holidays that fell about the middle of the shortest month of the year. Dedicated to the goddess Juno, who was the wife of Jupiter, these festivals stressed love, courtship, and marriage.

"That was appropriate since Juno, queen of heaven, was regarded as the special protector of women in `critical times of life.'....

"When Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire by edict of Emperor Constantine, religious leaders immediately started trying to do away with pagan festivals. Many of them had been observed for so many centuries that they resisted all frontal attacks, so there were many efforts to bring about change in a more subtle fashion. One of the most effective was a substitution of a Christian [?] observance for a pagan one, with special ceremonies held on or near the date of the long-established holiday.

"Since the martyrdom of St. Valentine was celebrated on February 14, it made sense to stress homage to the man who was said to have been stoned to death on that day in A. D. 269. For that reason the name of a man about whom no written records exist came to be attached to the day formerly dedicated to Juno."

And The World Book Encyclopedia, Vol. 20, 1973 ed. on page 204 says this:

"Valentine's Day comes on the feast of two different Christian martyrs named Valentine. But the customs connected with the day ... probably came from an ancient Roman festival called Lupercalia which took place every February 15. The festival honored Juno, the Roman goddess of women and marriage, and Pan, the god of nature."

Some would say that it's wrong to pay such homage to dead men, whether "Saints" or not, but certainly it's incredibly wrong to mix in pagan ceremonies honoring pagan gods in the process.

"What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? .... `Therefore come out from them and be separate,' says the Lord. `Touch no unclean thing, and I will receive you ...' says the Lord Almighty." - 2 Cor. 6:16, 17, NIVSB. [NIVSB f.n.: "agreement...between the temple of God and idols. There can be no reversion to or compromise with the idolatry they have forsaken for the gospel (cf. 1 Th. 1:9)."]

Additional Reading:
Jehovah's Witnesses and the Gregorian Calendar (Defend Jehovah's Witnesses)

Can the Pagan Customs of Christmas Really Be MADE Acceptable to God? (Defend Jehovah's Witnesses)

Can a Pagan Holiday Be Made Christian? (Official Website of Jehovah's Witnesses)


Should We Venerate "Saints as Intercessors" With God?

Notice what Peter's response was to a certain situation in the account of Acts 10:25, 26, JB:

"As Peter reached the house Cornelius went out to meet him, knelt at his feet and prostrated himself. But Peter helped him up. `Stand up,' he said `I am only a man after all!'"

Peter did not approve of such adoration when he was personally present. He understood what Jesus clearly stated in John 14:6, 14 that our approach to the Father can be only through Jesus and that our requests are to be made in Jesus' name:

"Jesus said: `I am the Way, the Truth and the Life. No one can come to the Father except through me. If you ask for anything in my name, I will do it.'" (JB)

1 Tim. 2:5: "For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." (NASB)

Note what Martin Luther wrote concerning the reverence of Roman Catholic Saints:

"The pity is that we are so blind that we do not leave the devil alone to play his tricks in his own way; rather, we support him and multiply them. I wish people would leave the saints in peace, and not mislead humble folk. What spirit was it that gave the pope authority to canonize saints? Who tells him whether they are holy or not? .... God is just in judging us with His wrath and in allowing the devil to lead us hither and thither, to institute pilgrimages, ... to set about canonizing saints and other foolish things." - p. 458, Martin Luther, Selections From His Writings, Dr. John Dillenberger, Anchor Books, Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1961.

Additional Reading:
THE BIBLE’S VIEWPOINT - Is It Appropriate to Pray to “Saints”? (Official Website of Jehovah's Witnesses)

How Should We Pray? - "Teach Us How to Pray" (Official Website of Jehovah's Witnesses)

Why Did David and Bath-sheba's Son Have to Die?

After David and Bath-sheba sinned, why did their son have to die, since Deuteronomy 24:16 and Ezekiel 18:20 say that a son is not to die for his father's error?

David and Bath-sheba were both married persons when they committed adultery and she became pregnant. Their adultery was a grave sin punishable by death under God's law. (2 Samuel 11:1-5; Deuteronomy 5:18; 22:22) So if God had permitted them to be dealt with by humans under the Law, the son developing in her womb would have died with its mother. But Jehovah chose to handle their case differently, which "the Judge of all the earth" certainly had a right to do.—Genesis 18:25.

When confronted with his guilt, David acknowledged: "I have sinned against Jehovah." Then God's spokesman told David: "Jehovah, in turn, does let your sin pass by. You will not die." (2 Samuel 12:13) David was shown mercy because of the Kingdom covenant. Moreover, since God is able to read hearts, he must have evaluated the genuineness of David's repentance and concluded that there was a basis for extending mercy to David and Bath-sheba. Yet they would not escape all the deserts of their error. They were told: "Notwithstanding this, because you have unquestionably treated Jehovah with disrespect by this thing, also the son himself, just born to you, will positively die."—2 Samuel 12:14.

God `dealt a blow' involving their child to whom they were not entitled; the boy became sick and died. A person today might tend to focus on the child's death and feel that a harsh judgment was executed. However, it is good to bear in mind that had the adultery been handled by and proved before human judges under the Law, all three (David, Bath-sheba, and the son in her womb) would have lost their lives. Viewed in that light, God's permitting two of them to survive was merciful. Furthermore, at this late date we do not have all the facts, such as information about the health of the infant immediately after birth. We can, nonetheless, accept God's handling of the matter, confident that what he did was impartial, wise, and righteous. Even David later acknowledged: "As for the true God, perfect is his way."—2 Samuel 22:31; compare Job 34:12; Isaiah 55:11.

That is consistent with David's reaction after he heard God's judgment. While the child was sick, David grieved and fasted. But once death occurred, David appreciated that the matter had ended. (2 Samuel 12:22, 23) So, trusting God's judgment, David proceeded to comfort Bath-sheba (now his legal wife), assuring her that their marriage relationship would continue. Later Solomon was born to them and became David's successor." -Watchtower 3/15/86

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

(Because the Bible does not fully inform us as to who God will definitely provide the hope of a resurrection to, the following additional comments have certain words that are highlighted in bold to emphasize that this is what the Bible indicates on the matter.)

Highlighted above (in blue) are the passages where it stated that if humans dealt with this matter, not only would Bath-sheba and David be killed, but the unborn child would have been as well. If that happened, would the unborn child have had the possibility of a resurrection?

Resurrection implies a raising to life again. The examples in the Bible of persons raised to human life again indicate that the person comes back to life with the same degree of physical and mental growth possessed at death. (2 Ki. 4:17-36; Acts 20:9-12) Applying that to miscarriages and stillborn deliveries, is it reasonable that in the future Jehovah will insert back into the womb of a woman a partially developed embryo, or possibly a number of them? No, that does not seem so, nor is it likely that women who have had this sad experience actually expect that.

Also, resurrection is for persons who have lived as individuals before Jehovah. Even a child who lives for only a short time after birth has existed as a separate person. But a miscarried fetus or stillborn child, though from a Biblical standpoint considered a "soul" while it was developing, never actually lived as a separate and distinct individual. So it would appear that such situations do not fall under the resurrection provision outlined in the Bible.—Acts 24:15.

With this mentioned, it is interesting that God, in the case of David and Bath-sheba, allowed the child to have been born first before the child died thus perhaps providing the hope of a resurrection. We cannot comprehend fully the mind of Jehovah because His thoughts are higher than ours, but we do know that "We can, nonetheless, accept God's handling of the matter, confident that what He did was impartial, wise, and righteous. Even David later acknowledged: "As for the true God, perfect is his way."—2 Samuel 22:31"