Is G-d Omnipresent?

[Sojourner]

I have been thinking a little in recent times about the suggestion that G-d is Omnipresent and by that I mean that G-d exists in all places and at all periods of time  in the same instance.

 

One thing that I have been considering is that I am not sure that the Apostle John simply saw a prophetic vision and wrote the Book of Revelation from that vision. It has occurred to me that John actually participates in events prophecied in the book of Revelation as opposed to simply viewing them happening and recording them.

 

Some evidence of what I mean to say is this, In John Revelation Ch 5, they wish to open the scroll and no one is initially found worthy. In Rev 5:5 John begins to weep and is addressed directly by one of the elders participating in that event and told “Do not weep”, it then goes on to stay that Jesus is in fact worthy to open the scroll.

 

In John 7 the great number of people are present who are dressed in white robes. Again John is directly addressed by the Elder and asked “These in white robes – who are they and where did they come from?” and John then answers him the question as to who these people are.

 

John 10:8 talks again about John being addressed directly, being given the scroll and being told to eat it.

 

There are more examples than just these, but these three are good examples of the point that I am trying to get across. That point being that John is not simply observing these events, he is participating in them at some point in the future which we now know to have to be at least 2000+ years in advance of his natural life span, indicating that G-d has transported him via his omnipresence to the occurrence of this event in the future and not only that but gives him a specific role to play in these events.

 

Thoughts?

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

If that were true, then the same could be said of Ellen White and her visions where she spoke to beings.

 

I don't buy the idea... but interesting theory, nonetheless..

[Gerr]

My own take on God's omnipresence is that He is not/cannot be in infinite number of places in person, but that He is intimately aware of everything in His creation to such an extent that it is as though He is in every place.

[Lauralea]

In terms of the omnipresence of God I think of Jesus saying before Abraham was I am meaning He was present in all times. Jesus took on a physical body so He in His person is no longer omnipresent although still omniscient or all knowing. God the Father and the Holy Spirit still can be everywhere. God is not limited by the dimensions of space and time not to go all New Agey. He is greater than all the Creation including the dimensions of space and Time. But because God is everywhere does not mean we should worship the creation . It means He is far greater than all creation.

[Lauralea]

While I believe God is omnipresent in space and time, not sure about your conclusions re John. Even Paul said he was not sure when when someone had these types of visions whether they were actually present at the location the vision depicted. However Ellen White was told she could not eat something while in vision because those who ate of it went back to Earth no more so perhaps in some cases at least they are present. With John though some things like eating the scroll were I believe symbolic- no one ate any literal books during the prophetic time referred to in the vision.  

[Gail]

Like everything else connected with God I am sure that there is much about His nature that is beyond my understanding.

We do know this much about His omnipresence, that He knows the oppression of the poor, the widows and the fatherless. He knows people's hearts, because He judges those and not from appearances.

[TrevorL]

Greetings Sojourner,

I have been thinking a little in recent times about the suggestion that G-d is Omnipresent and by that I mean that G-d exists in all places and at all periods of time  in the same instance.

 

Thoughts?

I was interested in your suggestion, but it is beyond my limited comprehension as I can only understand time being linear.

 

One question though, why do you use the word "G-d"? We can recognise what you are saying, but I cannot see any real value in using this spelling. It does not seem to have any basis in Hebrew, Greek or English.

 

Kind regards

Trevor

[Sojourner]

Greetings Sojourner,

I was interested in your suggestion, but it is beyond my limited comprehension as I can only understand time being linear.

 

One question though, why do you use the word "G-d"? We can recognise what you are saying, but I cannot see any real value in using this spelling. It does not seem to have any basis in Hebrew, Greek or English.

 

Kind regards

Trevor

Hi Trevor, the reason that I abbreviate that term is because I have become aware that to many Jewish and Messianic believers that it is considered sacred and it is ascribed holiness and any of the names for G-d are considered to holy to say. After considering this for a while I decided that I agreed with them and whilst I don't even remotely mind if others choose to use the full names, my observation is that it is a good thing to show that type of respect and reverence towards G-d by doing that. Again its something I decided for myself only and not something I would tell others they should do also. 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Sojourner,

 

Hi Trevor, the reason that I abbreviate that term is because I have become aware that to many Jewish and Messianic believers that it is considered sacred and it is ascribed holiness and any of the names for G-d are considered to holy to say. After considering this for a while I decided that I agreed with them and whilst I don't even remotely mind if others choose to use the full names, my observation is that it is a good thing to show that type of respect and reverence towards G-d by doing that. Again its something I decided for myself only and not something I would tell others they should do also. 

I appreciate your response. I was not aware that Jewish and Messianic believers avoided the use of most of the names and titles for God. I was aware that many of them did not read YHWH, but substituted Lord or some other word when reading the Hebrew Bible. I personally consider that such caution is misplaced. I also consider using the word G-d is a new invention and has some appearance of the English title for God, but in the process it endorses the Jewish superstition. Is the title G-d your own particular invention or is this one of the terms used by Jewish and Messianic believers? If widespread then you are faced with the same problem all over again. If your own invention you are replacing the Word of God (even though an English translation) with you own thoughts.

Kind regards
Trevor
 

[Lauralea]

Greetings again Sojourner,

 

I appreciate your response. I was not aware that Jewish and Messianic believers avoided the use of most of the names and titles for God. I was aware that many of them did not read YHWH, but substituted Lord or some other word when reading the Hebrew Bible. I personally consider that such caution is misplaced. I also consider using the word G-d is a new invention and has some appearance of the English title for God, but in the process it endorses the Jewish superstition. Is the title G-d your own particular invention or is this one of the terms used by Jewish and Messianic believers? If widespread then you are faced with the same problem all over again. If your own invention you are replacing the Word of God (even though an English translation) with you own thoughts.

Kind regards

Trevor

 

I believe there are no vowels in the Hebrew alphabet or Bible so in the original there were no vowels to leave out. Agree using vowels does not offend God in any way. I know that many Jews do not say the name of God and do use G-d and can see where you would say leaving it out is not appropriate, but just wanted you to know there actually were no vowels, so it might be considered to be similar to the original by some.

[TrevorL]

Greetings Lauralea,

I believe there are no vowels in the Hebrew alphabet or Bible so in the original there were no vowels to leave out. Agree using vowels does not offend God in any way. I know that many Jews do not say the name of God and do use G-d and can see where you would say leaving it out is not appropriate, but just wanted you to know there actually were no vowels, so it might be considered to be similar to the original by some.

I agree that the original Hebrew Scriptures did not have vowels only consonants. The vowels were added by the Massorites in the early centuries AD when Hebrew was dying out, and the purpose was to preserve an understanding of the original Hebrew words. If you read the introduction to Rotherham’s translation he also discusses how the Massorites or later added the vowels of “adonai” to YHWH. This was to avoid pronouncing the Name YHWH because of the Jewish reticence, and was a prompt to tell the reader to say “adonai” (that is “Lord”) instead. The use of G-d does not seem to be of any real value, as it only superficially imitates Hebrew. Someone from a non-English background could say gad, ged, gid, gud if they guessed that a vowel was missing.

Kind regards
Trevor
 

[Lauralea]

Thank you Trevor. It is not that it has personal value for me, just that I think some Messianic Jews may observe it culturally and not sure that it wrests the text although I agree personally it is unnecessary.