7

<body topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 marginheight=0 marginwidth=0> <table cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 border=0><tr> <td valign="top" height=90 BGCOLOR="#CC9900" TEXT="#080000" bgproperties="fixed" background="043005a0dwnjzk.gif"> <div> <A HREF="index.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="EDWARD WATSONS WEBWORLD"><U><B>home</B></U></A><B> | </B><FONT SIZE="5" COLOR="#FFCC66" FACE="Arial" ><B>EDWARD WATS</B><B>ON'S WEBWORLD</B></FONT></div> <div> <A HREF="id61.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION"><U><B>SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="id62.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="1"><U><B>1</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="id66.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="2"><U><B>2</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="id67.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="3"><U><B>3</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="id68.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="4"><U><B>4</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="id55.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="5"><U><B>5</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="id69.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="6"><U><B>6</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><B>7</B><B>   |   </B><A HREF="id71.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="8"><U><B>8</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="id72.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="9"><U><B>9</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="id60.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="10"><U><B>10</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="id73.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="11"><U><B>11</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="id74.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="12"><U><B>12</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="id75.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="13"><U><B>13</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="id76.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="14"><U><B>14</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="id77.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="15"><U><B>15</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="id78.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="16"><U><B>16</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="id79.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="17"><U><B>17</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="id80.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="18"><U><B>18</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="id81.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="APPENDIX"><U><B>APPENDIX</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="id82.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="SECTION 1: CONCLUSION"><U><B>SECTION 1: CONCLUSION</B></U></A><B>   |   </B><A HREF="id65.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="ABBREVIATIONS"><U><B>ABBREVIATIONS</B></U></A></div> <div> </div> </td> </tr><tr> <td valign="top" height=390 BGCOLOR="#FFFFFF" TEXT="#080000"> <div> <B>[MORMONISM. The Faith of the Twenty-first Century. Volume 1. Edward K. Watson. (Liahona Publications. Copyright © 1998 Edward K. Watson.) pp. 83-101. MORMONISM: Section 1, Chapter 7. All rights reserved.]</B></div> <bR> <div> <U>CHAPTER 7</U></div> <bR> <div> <B>Biblical Passages the Anti-Mormons Use to Prove </B></div> <div> <B>God’s Alleged Ontological Omnipresence </B></div> <bR> <div>      Critics of the LDS church will only use certain passages in the Bible in arguing God is ontologically omnipresent and disregard numerous others that describe him as a non-omnipresent God. Our opponents’ selective approach distorts the truth about God. This is just like using 2 Kng  17:18,20,23;  24:3; Jer  4:1 and  7:15 in arguing God isn’t omnipotent or omniscient because God can remove the wicked from out of his sight. Can an omniscient omnipotent God really not see and know the wicked?</div> <div>      Does the Bible teach God is ontologically omnipresent (his “being” is everywhere) that current Judaism, non-Mormon Christianity and Islam believe or does it teach he is functionally omnipresent (he can simultaneously be in as many places as he wishes, can know everything that can be known everywhere, and can influence anything that can be influenced anywhere) as Mormonism claims?</div> <bR> <div> <B>1) Ps </B> <B>139:7-8.</B> </div> <bR> <div> <FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" > </FONT>Ps <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" > </FONT>139:7-8 <I>Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence? If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there.</I></div> <bR> <div>      Let us examine Ps 139:7-8 in context:</div> <bR> <div>  Ps <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" > </FONT>139:1-16,23-24 <I>O LORD, thou hast searched me, and known me. Thou knowest my downsitting and mine uprising, thou understandest my thoughts afar off</I>. Thou compassest my path and my lying down, and art acquainted with all my ways. For there is not a word in my tongue, but, lo, O, LORD, thou <I>knowest</I> it altogether. Thou hast beset me behind and before, and laid thine hand upon me.<I> Such knowledge is too wonderful for me;</I> it is high, I cannot attain unto it. <I>Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence? If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there.</I> If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea; <I>even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy right hand shall hold me.</I> If I say, surely the darkness shall cover me; even the night shall be light about me. Yea, the darkness hideth not from thee; but the night shineth as the day: the darkness and the light are both alike to thee. For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother’s womb. I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.<I> My substance was not hid from thee,</I> when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.<I> Thine eyes did see my substance</I>, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them ...  <I>Search me, O God, and know my heart: try me, and know my thoughts.</I> And see if there be any wicked way in me, and<I> lead me in the way everlasting.</I></div> <bR> <div>      I find this Psalm to be one of the most beautiful in the Bible. This psalm when examined as a whole doesn’t teach God is an omnipresent nonmaterial entity. <B>The Psalmist was praising God for his all-seeing knowledge and wisdom.</B> He wasn’t talking about God being a formless nonmaterial being that is everywhere. Proof that this is so can be found in verse two, which sets the stage (<I>thou understandest my thoughts afar off</I>). Despite God being far away (notice the spatial limitation), he can still see everything and nothing can be hidden from him. By examining the context of Ps  139:7-8 we discover that when the Psalmist mentioned the presence of God, he wasn’t referring to an ontological omnipresence but was a praise for the power of God’s knowledge. There isn’t a place in this universe where we can hide from his knowledge. <B>This psalm praises the </B> <B>omniscience of God, not his omnipresence</B>, which wouldn’t even make any sense in context. </div> <div>      It is only possible to interpret Ps  139:7-8 as teaching the ontological omnipresence of God if taken out of context or in isolation from the rest of the Psalm. This apparent omnipresence of God is not due to him being a nonmaterial entity that ontologically fills the universe; this is a result of the nature of God’s omniscience which is omnipresent.  God knows everything (Heb  4:13; 1 Jn  3:20). His knowledge extends throughout the universe. There isn’t a place where we can hide from his knowledge. Because of this power, God then has the appearance of being omnipresent,  despite he isn’t in an ontological sense. On the other hand, he does have a  functional omnipresence due to his power.</div> <bR> <div> <FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="BernhardMod BT" > </FONT>Mos<FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" > </FONT> 7:30 And were it possible that man could number the particles of the earth, yea, millions of earths like this, it would not be a beginning to the number of thy creations; and thy curtains are stretched out still; and <I>yet thou art there,</I> and thy bosom is there; and also thou art just; thou art merciful and kind forever.</div> <bR> <div>      Our Latter-day Scriptures mention the same thing (“thou art there”) in reference to God and his creations but we’ve never believed in God’s essence as being ontologically omnipresent but view this to refer to God’s power or ability. </div> <div>      Why would God need to be ontologically omnipresent if he is functionally omnipresent? He can remain at a certain location and influence everything in the entire universe, simultaneously, if he so wishes, since he is all-powerful or  omnipotent. He does not <I>need</I> to have his essence everywhere at once.</div> <div>      What about Eccl  1:14 which states:</div> <bR> <div> <FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" > </FONT>Eccl<FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" > </FONT> 1:14 <I>I have seen all the works that are done under the sun</I>; and, behold, all is vanity and vexation of spirit. </div> <bR> <div>      Does this mean King Solomon was omnipresent?</div> <bR> <div>      Ps  139:7-8 does not teach God is an omnipresent nonmaterial being. It instead refers to the apparent omnipresence of God due to his  omniscience since<I> the entire psalm is a praise of God’s omniscience.</I></div> <bR> <div> <B>2) Jer </B> <B>23:24.</B> </div> <bR> <div>  Jer 23:24 Can any hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him? saith the LORD. <I>Do not I fill heaven and earth</I>? saith the LORD.</div> <bR> <div>      This passage in my view is the most effective passage in the Bible that can be used to support the idea that God is a nonmaterial being that fills the universe. However, an examination of <I>all</I> the biblical texts which talk about God, shows such a concept has to be rejected because the Bible as a whole supports the idea that God is  in anthropomorphic form.</div> <div>      Jer  23:24 is frequently quoted out of context. Let us examine it in context:</div> <bR> <div>  Jer <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" > </FONT>23:21-25 I have not sent these prophets, yet they ran: I have not spoken to them, yet they prophesied. But if they had stood in my counsel, and had caused my people to hear my words, then they should have turned them from their evil way, and from the evil of their doings.  <I>Am I a God at hand, saith the LORD, and not a God afar off? Can any hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him? saith the LORD. Do not I fill the heaven and earth? saith the LORD. I have heard what the prophets said,</I> that prophesy lies in my name, saying, I have dreamed, I have dreamed. </div> <bR> <div>      There are two things that have to be pointed out in these verses. The first is in v. 23. This can be understood two ways. The first and most probably correct interpretation is when the context is examined, we discover that God is condemning the false prophets who were claiming to receive revelation from God and were leading the Israelites to destruction. They claimed the Lord spoke when he didn’t. When he said “a God at hand,” this may have reference when he was actively interacting with the people, such as during the time of Moses, when the Israelites could see the miracles and signs of God. Because of their witnessing these divine evidences, they remained faithful to God and his will. When God said “a God afar off,” this may have reference to the situation during Jeremiah’s time when God ceased displaying signs and wonders.<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >1</FONT> The people then became lax in their devotion. Basically, what v.  23 most probably means is, “Am I God only when I perform miracles and show my power, or, am I no longer God when I cease displaying my power?” </div> <div>      A second and less likely possibility is God’s showing that he is universally a God, or a God of the whole earth. He is differentiating himself from the other gods who in Jeremiah’s time supposedly only possessed dominion over their respective host countries. Baal only had dominion over Canaan. The Egyptian gods only controlled Egypt but could not affect Syria. The Greek gods could only influence Greece and so forth. The gods of Israel’s neighbors were only gods “at hand” and were not gods “afar off.” This verse may be a support for the superiority of the God of Israel over any other.</div> <div>      Does Jer  23:24 really mean God fills the universe with himself? No, because <B>this passage doesn’t say what God filled the universe </B><I><B>with</B></I><B>!</B> What was it that God filled the heavens and the earth with? His essence? His knowledge? His power? The “light” from his presence? What? Why assume this passage refers to God’s presence (via his alleged <I>ousia</I>) when such an assumption causes this passage to be the only passage in the entire Bible to teach the ontological omnipresence of God and will cause it to explicitly contradict all the other biblical passages that show God’s ontological non-omnipresence? </div> <div>      The word “fill” is from the Hebrew “<I>m</I><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="WP MultinationalA Roman" ><I>~</I></FONT><I>l</I><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="WP MultinationalA Roman" ><I>‘</I></FONT><I>’ </I>” (4390) and occurs nearly 250 times in the OT. It means “to be full, to fill, overflow, ordain, endow [fill one’s hand], to confirm, to consecrate, to be filled up [coming to an end], to fulfill, presume.”<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >2</FONT> All the OT instances of “<I>m</I><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="WP MultinationalA Roman" ><I>~</I></FONT><I>l</I><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="WP MultinationalA Roman" ><I>‘</I></FONT><I>’</I>” have the passages describing what “<I>m</I><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="WP MultinationalA Roman" ><I>~</I></FONT><I>l</I><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="WP MultinationalA Roman" ><I>‘</I></FONT><I>’ </I>” is filled <I>with</I> except Jer  23:24 and Isa  8:8 (does the king actually fill the lands with his wings [armies] in an omnipresent state?). </div> <div>      Because Jer  23:24 doesn’t mention what God filled the universe with, it is doubtful “<I>m</I><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="WP MultinationalA Roman" ><I>~</I></FONT><I>l</I><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="WP MultinationalA Roman" ><I>‘</I></FONT><I>’</I>” is used here in the sense of three-dimensional volume or else this is the only place out of nearly 250 occurrences that “<I>m</I><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="WP MultinationalA Roman" ><I>~</I></FONT><I>l</I><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="WP MultinationalA Roman" ><I>‘</I></FONT><I>’ </I>” is used in such a way. <I>It most probably means </I><B>God fills the universe with his knowledge/awareness</B><I> because it mentions “see” before “m</I><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="WP MultinationalA Roman" ><I>~</I></FONT><I>l</I><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="WP MultinationalA Roman" ><I>‘</I></FONT><I>’” and “heard” after it which are both characteristics of knowledge or omniscience, not omnipresence.</I></div> <bR> <div> <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="BernhardMod BT" > (a) Jer </FONT> <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="BernhardMod BT" >23:10 For the land is full [</FONT><I>m</I><FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="WP MultinationalA Roman" ><I>~</I></FONT><I>l</I><FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="WP MultinationalA Roman" ><I>‘</I></FONT><I>’</I><FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="BernhardMod BT" >] of adulterers; for because of swearing the land mourneth; the pleasant places of the wilderness are dried up, and their course is evil, and their force [is] not right.</FONT></div> <bR> <div>      Jeremiah himself, in the very same chapter Jer  23:24 is in uses the same Hebrew word to refer to adulterers. The land is full [<I>m</I><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="WP MultinationalA Roman" ><I>~</I></FONT><I>l</I><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="WP MultinationalA Roman" ><I>‘</I></FONT><I>’</I>] of adulterers.  If “<I>m</I><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="WP MultinationalA Roman" ><I>~</I></FONT><I>l</I><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="WP MultinationalA Roman" ><I>‘</I></FONT><I>’ </I>” means an ontological omnipresence, does this mean these adulterers were ontologically omnipresent in the land just as God is ontologically omnipresent in heaven and earth? Of course not.</div> <div>      Here are other passages from Jeremiah where he uses the word:</div> <bR> <div> <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="BernhardMod BT" > (b) Jer </FONT> <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="BernhardMod BT" >19:4 Because they have forsaken me, and have estranged this place, and have burned incense in it unto other gods, whom neither they nor their fathers have known, nor the kings of Judah, and have filled [</FONT><I>m</I><FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="WP MultinationalA Roman" ><I>~</I></FONT><I>l</I><FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="WP MultinationalA Roman" ><I>‘</I></FONT><I>’</I><FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="BernhardMod BT" >] this place with the blood of innocents.</FONT></div> <bR> <div> <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="BernhardMod BT" > (c) Jer </FONT> <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="BernhardMod BT" >33:5 They come to fight with the Chaldeans, but [it is] to fill [</FONT><I>m</I><FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="WP MultinationalA Roman" ><I>~</I></FONT><I>l</I><FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="WP MultinationalA Roman" ><I>‘</I></FONT><I>’</I><FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="BernhardMod BT" >] them with the dead bodies of men, whom I have slain in mine anger and in my fury, and for all whose wickedness I have hid my face from this city.</FONT></div> <bR> <div> <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="BernhardMod BT" > (d) Jer </FONT> <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="BernhardMod BT" >41:9 Now the pit wherein Ishmael had cast all the dead bodies of the men, whom he had slain because of Gedaliah, [was] it which Asa the king had made for fear of Baasha king of Israel: [and] Ishmael the son of Nethaniah filled [</FONT><I>m</I><FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="WP MultinationalA Roman" ><I>~</I></FONT><I>l</I><FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="WP MultinationalA Roman" ><I>‘</I></FONT><I>’</I><FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="BernhardMod BT" >] it with [them that were] slain.</FONT></div> <bR> <div> <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="BernhardMod BT" > (e) Jer </FONT> <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="BernhardMod BT" >46:12 The nations have heard of thy shame, and thy cry hath filled [</FONT><I>m</I><FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="WP MultinationalA Roman" ><I>~</I></FONT><I>l</I><FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="WP MultinationalA Roman" ><I>‘</I></FONT><I>’</I><FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="BernhardMod BT" >] the land: for the mighty man hath stumbled against the mighty, [and] they are fallen both together.</FONT></div> <bR> <div> <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="BernhardMod BT" > (f) Jer </FONT> <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="BernhardMod BT" >51:14  The LORD of hosts hath sworn by himself, [saying], Surely I will fill [</FONT><I>m</I><FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="WP MultinationalA Roman" ><I>~</I></FONT><I>l</I><FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="WP MultinationalA Roman" ><I>‘</I></FONT><I>’</I><FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="BernhardMod BT" >] thee with men, as with caterpillars; and they shall lift up a shout against thee.</FONT></div> <bR> <div>      It’s obvious Jer  23:24's usage of “<I>m</I><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="WP MultinationalA Roman" ><I>~</I></FONT><I>l</I><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="WP MultinationalA Roman" ><I>‘</I></FONT><I>’ </I>” can’t be taken for granted to mean an ontological omnipresence since Jeremiah frequently uses the word in a non-omnipresent sense.</div> <div>      Let’s examine other passages that have “<I>m</I><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="WP MultinationalA Roman" ><I>~</I></FONT><I>l</I><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="WP MultinationalA Roman" ><I>‘</I></FONT><I>’ </I>” where it is used in the sense of “fill” to see if it’s consistently used in an omnipresent three-dimensional sense:</div> <bR> <div> <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="BernhardMod BT" > (1) Gen</FONT> <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="BernhardMod BT" > 1:22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill [</FONT><I>m</I><FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="WP MultinationalA Roman" ><I>~</I></FONT><I>l</I><FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="WP MultinationalA Roman" ><I>‘</I></FONT><I>’</I><FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="BernhardMod BT" >] the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.</FONT></div> <bR> <div>      God commanded the fishes and other marine life to fill (“<I>m</I><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="WP MultinationalA Roman" ><I>~</I></FONT><I>l</I><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="WP MultinationalA Roman" ><I>‘</I></FONT><I>’ </I>”) the waters of the seas. Do fish occupy every cubit inch of all the waters in the oceans?</div> <bR> <div> <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="BernhardMod BT" > (2) Gen</FONT> <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="BernhardMod BT" > 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish [</FONT><I>m</I><FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="WP MultinationalA Roman" ><I>~</I></FONT><I>l</I><FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="WP MultinationalA Roman" ><I>‘</I></FONT><I>’</I><FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="BernhardMod BT" >] the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.</FONT></div> <bR> <div>      God commanded Adam and Eve to fill (“<I>m</I><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="WP MultinationalA Roman" ><I>~</I></FONT><I>l</I><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="WP MultinationalA Roman" ><I>‘</I></FONT><I>’ </I>”) the earth. Are humans omnipresent? Do we fill every cubit inch of the earth? (Also see Gen  9:1).</div> <bR> <div> <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="BernhardMod BT" > (3) Ex</FONT> <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="BernhardMod BT" > 1:7 And the children of Israel were fruitful, and increased abundantly, and multiplied, and waxed exceeding mighty; and the land was filled [</FONT><I>m</I><FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="WP MultinationalA Roman" ><I>~</I></FONT><I>l</I><FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="WP MultinationalA Roman" ><I>‘</I></FONT><I>’</I><FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="BernhardMod BT" >] with them.</FONT></div> <bR> <div>      Did the Israelites have an omnipresent existence in the land?</div> <bR> <div> <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="BernhardMod BT" > (4) Ex </FONT> <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="BernhardMod BT" >10:6 And they shall fill  [</FONT><I>m</I><FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="WP MultinationalA Roman" ><I>~</I></FONT><I>l</I><FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="WP MultinationalA Roman" ><I>‘</I></FONT><I>’</I><FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="BernhardMod BT" >] thy houses, and the houses of all thy servants, and the houses of all the Egyptians; which neither thy fathers, nor thy fathers' fathers have seen, since the day that they were upon the earth unto this day. And he turned himself, and went out from Pharaoh.</FONT></div> <bR> <div>      Were the locusts ontologically omnipresent? Were the houses and people in a state of interpenetration with these locusts?</div> <bR> <div>  <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="BernhardMod BT" >(5) Judg </FONT> <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="BernhardMod BT" >16:27 Now the house was full [</FONT><I>m</I><FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="WP MultinationalA Roman" ><I>~</I></FONT><I>l</I><FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="WP MultinationalA Roman" ><I>‘</I></FONT><I>’</I><FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="BernhardMod BT" >] of men and women; and all the lords of the Philistines [were] there; and [there were] upon the roof about three thousand men and women, that beheld while Samson made sport.</FONT></div> <bR> <div>      Did these people fill every cubit inch of this palace?</div> <bR> <div> <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="BernhardMod BT" > (6) 1 Kng </FONT> <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="BernhardMod BT" >20:27 And the children of Israel were numbered, and were all present, and went against them: and the children of Israel pitched before them like two little flocks of kids; but the Syrians filled [</FONT><I>m</I><FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="WP MultinationalA Roman" ><I>~</I></FONT><I>l</I><FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="WP MultinationalA Roman" ><I>‘</I></FONT><I>’</I><FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="BernhardMod BT" >] the country.</FONT></div> <bR> <div>      Were the Syrians ontologically omnipresent in the land?</div> <bR> <div>      Many more passages could be given to show that the usage of the Hebrew word  “<I>m</I><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="WP MultinationalA Roman" ><I>~</I></FONT><I>l</I><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="WP MultinationalA Roman" ><I>‘</I></FONT><I>’ </I>” in the sense of “fill” doesn’t automatically suggest a three-dimensional omnipresence within the area, (e.g., 2 Kng  3:20;  6:17;  10:21;  21:16;  23:14;  24:4; Job  3:15; Ps  127:5; Prov  1:13;  3:10; Isa  2:7-8;  13:21;  22:7;  34:6; Ezek  8:17;  9:7,9;  11:6;  23:33;  28:16;  30:11;  32:5-6;  35:8; Joel  2:24; Hag  2:7; etc.) despite it is frequently used in the sense of filling a jar with water, water overflowing the banks of a river, and so forth. </div> <div>      These passages demonstrate the Hebrew word “<I>m</I><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="WP MultinationalA Roman" ><I>~</I></FONT><I>l</I><FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="WP MultinationalA Roman" ><I>‘</I></FONT><I>’</I>” doesn’t automatically mean an omnipresence.</div> <div>      Even if such an interpretation is discarded, it still doesn’t disprove the LDS concept of God since Jer  23:24 is actually clarified by D&C  88:5-13 which explains what God fills the universe with:</div> <bR> <div>  D&C <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" > </FONT>88:5-13 Which glory is that of the church of the Firstborn, even of God, the holiest of all, through Jesus Christ his Son- He that ascended up on high, as also he descended below all things, <I>in that he comprehended all things, that he might be in all and through all things, the light of truth; Which truth shineth. This is the light of Christ.</I> As also he is in the sun, and the light of the sun, and the power thereof by which it was made. As also he is in the moon, and is the light of the moon, and the power thereof by which it was made; As also the light of the stars, and the power thereof by which they were made; And the earth also, and the power thereof, even the earth upon which you stand. And <I>the light which shineth, which giveth you light</I>, is through him who enlighteneth your eyes, which is the same light that quickeneth your understandings; <I>Which light proceedeth forth from the presence of God to fill the immensity of space--  The light which is in all things, which giveth life to all things</I>, which is the law by which all things are governed, even the power of God who sitteth upon his throne, who is in the bosom of eternity, who is in the midst of all things.</div> <bR> <div>      The “light” emanating from God is omnipresent. This omnipresent “light” enlightens us, gives us understanding, and gives light to all things. Light is usually a description of the nonpersonal Light of the Lord or Spirit of the Lord. This spiritual “ether” or force (or even “zero-point energy”) is omnipresent and its utilization give God his omnipresent ability because of his omnipotence and omniscience.<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >3</FONT></div> <bR> <div>  <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" > Why is it hard for our opponents to understand an  all-powerful God being aware of everything in the universe (possessing an  omnipresent omniscience) without being ontologically omnipresent?</FONT></div> <bR> <div>      If Jer  23:24 really teaches God’s essence (<I>ousia</I>) is omnipresent, it would be alone against the numerous passages in the Bible that describe him in  anthropomorphic form. When one honestly examines the Bible, this is the only passage that <I>can</I> be used to support the view that God is a nonmaterial being, who’s omnipresent. Even then, one needs to place an assumption that this is about God’s essence instead of numerous other possibilities. How could an  anthropomorphic being fill the universe? The Bible shows God being in a human form and Jesus was supposed to be standing at his right side (Ps  110:1; Col  3:1; Acts  7:55-56; etc.).<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >4</FONT></div> <div>      A comparison of  Ps 110:1 with the five times it’s explicitly quoted in the NT (Matt  22:44; Mark  12:36; Luke  20:42; Acts  2:34-35 & Heb  1:13) shows that in every instance, “sit thou <I>at</I> my right hand” was said as, “sit thou <I>on</I> my right hand” thus showing the interchangeability of the terms. How could a being who fills the universe with his being sit on a throne and have a right side?</div> <bR> <div> <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" > </FONT>Isa <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" > </FONT>40:12 <I>Who hath measured the waters in the hollow of his hand, and meted out heaven with the span, and comprehended the dust of the earth in a measure, and weighed the mountains in scales, and the hills in a balance? </I></div> <bR> <div>      If the anti-Mormons insist Jer  23:24 has to be understood that God is ontologically omnipresent; can’t we use Isa  40:12 to mean God is literally a giant instead of being omnipresent? Is the Bible describing two different Gods? Should one focus on only one passage and insist only one interpretation is valid or must we examine what the Scriptures say as a whole before jumping to conclusions?</div> <div>      Let’s examine Jer  23:24 some more. The first part says, “Can any hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him?” This is identical with Ps  139:7 showing that Jeremiah was using a concept that the Psalmist was also talking about. By using the first part of this verse as a guide, we can see that this verse is actually talking about God having the appearance of being everywhere because no matter where we go, he will always <I>know</I> where we are. <I>This is about the </I> <I>omniscience of God which is omnipresent and not about his alleged ontological omnipresence. </I>Further proof that this is indeed the case is the phrase immediately after in the next verse, “I have heard what the prophets said ...” which shows the utilization of knowledge and comprehension.</div> <div>      It is completely illogical for anyone to isolate Jer  23:24 and insist that the only possible interpretation of it has to mean God is a nonmaterial being that fills the universe. If one were to utilize such an approach to the Bible, one could equally argue that our God is fire (Heb  12:29), the light is our God (1 Jn  1:5) or the emotion of love is our God (1 Jn  4:8). In order to understand the correct teaching of the Bible concerning God, one has to examine<I> all </I>the pertinent passages which refer to him. </div> <div>      There are two additional problems. Jesus is God, but he wasn’t ontologically omnipresent. He was limited to a physical anthropomorphic form which he still has today. Why do our critics think having a physical body “limits” God? Is he limited by time? No. By space? No. Having a physical body doesn’t hinder his nature and abilities. He still has his <I>functional omnipresence </I>which includes his<I> omnipresent omniscience</I> and, <I>omnipresent omnipotence</I>. </div> <div>      In conclusion, Jer  23:24 can only mean one thing:<B> God fills the universe with his knowledge/awareness </B>and this verse isn’t in reference to his alleged ontological omnipresence. </div> <div>      God is a being in  anthropomorphic form but his power, influence and knowledge fills the entire universe (D&C  88:12) giving him the appearance of being omnipresent. There are a number of reasons for this conclusion:</div> <bR> <div> (1) Honest biblical research has to examine all the passages in the Bible that mention God or the personage of God in order to realize what is the biblical concept of deity. It is wrong to examine one or two verses and demand that these constitute the correct biblical view of God while disregarding hundreds of other passages which point to another conclusion. </div> <div> (2) This understanding explains all the other biblical passages that can be used to support the idea that God the Father is an  anthropomorphic being. </div> <div> (3) It also explains all the other passages which can be used to support the idea that God the Father is omnipresent. </div> <div> (4) The context of Jer  23:24 proves it means God fills the universe with his omniscience or knowledge, not ontological omnipresence.</div> <bR> <div> <B>3) 2 Chr</B> <B> 6:18 (1 Kng</B> <B> 8:27; 2 Chr</B> <B> 2:6).</B> </div> <bR> <div>      Our critics will use these three verses in arguing God is a nonmaterial being who fills the entire universe with his being.<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >5</FONT></div> <bR> <div>  2 Chr<FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" > </FONT> 6:18 But will God in very deed dwell with men on the earth? Behold,<I> heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot contain thee;</I> how much less this house which I have built!</div> <bR> <div>      This chapter is the temple dedicatory prayer King Solomon offered up to the Lord. Was King Solomon giving a discourse on God’s nature? No, he wasn’t. He was using words of praise to the Lord.</div> <div>      On the assumption King Solomon had the universe in mind when he said “heaven and the heaven of heavens.” What did he mean when he said, it couldn’t contain God? Did he mean it in the sense that a one-gallon container is  unable to contain a volume of five-gallons of water (ontological state)? Or did he mean it in the sense of restraining, such as a paper bag is unable to contain an explosion from a grenade (power)?</div> <div>      There are three Hebrew words that are translated as “contain” in the OT of the AV. One is “<I>kûwl</I>” (3557) which means “to keep in, comprehend, feed, nourish, take care of, contain, endure, tolerate, etc.”<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >6</FONT> The other two are “<I>bavith</I>” (1004) “as great as would contain, abode, house, palace, temple, etc.”<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >7</FONT> and “<I>nâsâ</I>” (5375) “to lift, in a great variety of applications,” including, to “contain.”<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >8</FONT> Such as, the contents in a container that can be lifted.</div> <div>      Of the five instances where the word “contain” is found in the AV Old Testament, it is used three times (1 Kng  8:27; 2 Chr  2:6;  6:18) [“<I>kûwl</I>”], in the sense of not being able to keep in or restrain and is used twice (1 Kng  18:32; Ezek  45:11) in the sense of a measurement or volume.</div> <div>      Because of this, it is not possible to use 1 Kng  8:27; 2 Chr  2:6 & 2 Chr  6:18 to argue that God is an  omnipresent being because the pertinent Hebrew word in these three passages is used to mean  “unable to keep in or restrain.” It isn’t used in the sense of “volume.”</div> <div>      The Hebrew word “<I>kûwl</I>” is used in various ways. The primary meaning is to “nourish, feed, sustain” (Gen  45:11;  47:12;  50:21; Ruth  4:15; 2 Sam  19:32-33;  20:3; 1 Kng  4:7,27;  17:4,9;  18:4,13; Ps  55:22; Prov  18:14 & Zech  11:16). It is also used to mean “restrain” (1 Kng  8:27; 2 Chr  2:6;  6:18; Jer  6:11;  10:10;  20:9; Joel  2:11), “tolerate, endure” (Amos  7:10; Mal  3:2), “take care of” (Ps  112:5) and in the sense of volume (1 Kng  7:26,38;  8:64;  20:27; 2 Chr  4:5; Isa  40:12; Jer  2:13 & Ezek  23:32). </div> <bR> <div>      When King Solomon said the “heaven of heavens can’t contain [God]” he meant<B> the heavens are unable to </B><I><B>restrain</B></I><B> him. </B>The heavens can’t prevent God from dwelling with men and neither could the temple imprison God.</div> <bR> <div> <B> </B><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><B> </B></FONT><FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><B>Not even heaven or the heaven of heavens can restrain God, just as a paper bag can't contain an exploding grenade.</B></FONT></div> <bR> <div>      The AV NT also shows the distinctions of the word “contain” as can be seen in John  21:25 which is about volume or space and 1 Cor  7:9 which is about restraint.</div> <div>      If King Solomon believed God was a nonmaterial entity who filled the universe, he would’ve used the Hebrew word that referred to volume or space instead of the one that meant to restrain. He would’ve also viewed God as present in all things including the temple, the earth and where he was. Instead, all throughout this dedication, he constantly referred to God as dwelling in heaven or far away from him and the temple (See 2 Chr  6:21,23,27,30,33,35,39). God is supposed to reside somewhere in the heavens. King Solomon mentioned seven times that God dwelled in heaven which puts a spatial limitation on God’s person. He only once said that God can’t be contained by the heavens and used it in the sense of the universe being unable to restrain God.</div> <div>      King Solomon didn’t say or imply God filled all of heaven or the universe when he said “<I>heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot contain thee.”</I> If he believed this, why bother asking God to come into the temple? The <I>intent</I> of the dedication was to ask God to dwell in the temple. If God fills the universe with his essence, he would’ve automatically been in the temple and in all the materials it consisted of making the dedication unnecessary. </div> <div>      King Solomon viewed God as being in a certain place in heaven who wasn’t in the temple at that time. This is why he had this dedication so that God would come down from his residence in heaven and enter the temple.</div> <div>      It’s obvious that it isn’t possible to use these passages in support of an ontologically omnipresent deity since these passages aren’t about volume but are about restraint.</div> <bR> <div> <B>4) Eph</B> <B> 1:23 / Eph</B> <B> 4:6,10 / Col</B> <B> 3:11</B> .</div> <bR> <div> <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" > </FONT>Eph<FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" > </FONT> 1:23 Which is his body, <I>the fulness of him that filleth all in all</I></div> <bR> <div>  Eph<FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" > </FONT> 4:6,10 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and <I>through all, and in you all</I> ... He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that <I>he might fill all things.</I></div> <bR> <div>  Col<FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" > </FONT> 3:11 Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but <I>Christ is all, and in all.</I></div> <bR> <div>  <FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >     Our critics say these verses prove God the Father and Jesus Christ are actually one numerical God who is omnipresent because he fills “all in all” and “fills all things.” We believe these descriptions but don’t interpret them to mean God is ontologically omnipresent since we’ve never believed this Greek philosophical belief and our Latter-day Scriptures mention the same thing:</FONT></div> <bR> <div> <FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="BernhardMod BT" > </FONT>1) D&C <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" > </FONT>63:59 Behold, I am from above, and my power lieth beneath. <I>I am over all, and in all, and through all, and search all things, </I>and the day cometh that all things shall be subject unto me.</div> <bR> <div>  2) D&C <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" > </FONT>88:6,13,41 He that ascended up on high, as also he descended below all things, in that he comprehended all things, that <I>he might be in all and through all things,</I> the light of truth ... The light which is in all things, which giveth life to all things, which is the law by which all things are governed, even the power of God who sitteth upon his throne, who is in the bosom of eternity, <I>who is in the midst of all things</I> ... He comprehendeth all things, and<I> all things are before him, and all things are round about him; and he is above all things, and in all things, and is through all things, and is round about all things;</I> and all things are by him, and of him, even God, forever and ever. </div> <bR> <div>  3) D&C <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" > </FONT>109:77 O Lord God Almighty, hear us in these our petitions, and answer us from heaven, thy holy habitation, where thou sittest enthroned, with glory, honor, power, majesty, might, dominion, truth, justice, judgment, mercy, and <I>an infinity of fulness, </I>from everlasting to everlasting.</div> <bR> <div>      We understand these statements to be words of praise for the transcendent power of God which can’t be comprehended by mere mortals for its magnitude and magnificence.</div> <div>      This “fulness” is God’s essence/being (the “thing” that makes Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ “God” just as we have the “fulness” of the “Man” essence, the “thing” that makes us “human”). This “essence” isn’t a  formless, ethereal, omnipresent, nonmaterial substance. God’s essence is signified by his glory (Ps  72:19; Isa  6:3; Ezek  43:5; etc.) not his alleged  omnipresent essence (<I>ousia</I>).<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >9</FONT> Eph  4:10 clearly describes Jesus who<I> descended </I>but now <I>ascended</I> far above the heavens. The words “descended” and “ascended” are spatial descriptions impossible with an ontological omnipresence. Col  3:11 simply means there is no distinction between members from different races or cultures. A church member’s interpenetration with Jesus Christ isn’t contingent upon the race that member belongs to.</div> <div>      Heavenly Father gave all the  “fulness” to Jesus who in turn gives it to  us:</div> <bR> <div> <FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="BernhardMod BT" > </FONT>(a) Col<FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" > </FONT> 1:19 For it pleased the Father that<I> in him should all fulness dwell.</I></div> <bR> <div>  (b) Col<FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" > </FONT> 2:9-10 For<I> in him dwelleth all the fulness</I> of the Godhead <I>bodily. And ye are complete in him</I>, which is the head of all principality and power.</div> <bR> <div>  (c) John<FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" > </FONT> 1:16 And <I>of his fulness have all we received,</I> and grace for grace.</div> <bR> <div>  (d) Eph<FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" > </FONT> 3:19 And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that <I>ye might be filled with all the fulness of God.</I></div> <bR> <div>      Jesus possessed this  “fulness” while having a body with limited dimensions and we in turn receive this same  “fulness” (D&C  76:20,56,71,76-77,94;  88:29;  93:4,13,16,19-20,26-28;  109:15,77;  121:27). Do these verses mean we are also omnipresent beings? Of course not and neither do Eph  1:23 and  4:6,10 mean God and Jesus are omnipresent beings. (The interpenetration [mutual indwelling] passages [dwell in God / God dwells in us] are examined in MORMONISM: Sections 4 & 5).</div> <bR> <div> <B>5) Deut</B> <B> 4:39 / Acts </B> <B>17:24.</B> </div> <bR> <div> <FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="BernhardMod BT" > </FONT> Deut<FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" > </FONT> 4:39 Know therefore this day, and consider it in thine heart, that <I>the LORD he is God in heaven above, and upon the earth beneath: there is none else.</I></div> <bR> <div>   Acts <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" > </FONT>17:24 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that <I>he is Lord of heaven and earth</I>, dwelleth not in temples made with hands.</div> <bR> <div>      We agree with these verses wholeheartedly, but understand them to mean “dominion” instead of  omnipresence. God is the only God of heaven and of the earth. There isn’t any other God who has sovereignty over them. “I am the only owner of my house in Canada and my other house in the Philippines. There is no one else.” This statement doesn’t mean I am omnipresent within both homes but merely signify ownership. Likewise with God in relation to heaven and the earth.</div> <bR> <div> <B>6) Job </B> <B>11:7-9</B> .</div> <bR> <div> <FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="BernhardMod BT" > </FONT> Job <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" > </FONT>11:7-9 Canst thou by searching find out God? Canst thou find out <I>the Almighty </I>unto perfection? <I>It is as high as heaven; what canst thou do? Deeper than hell; what canst thou know? The measure thereof is longer than the earth, and broader than the sea.</I></div> <bR> <div>      Our opponents claim this passage proves God is omnipresent. Their problem is the speaker isn’t Job or God but Zophar (Job  11:1) and Job’s reply to him in Job  12:1-13:19 has him condemning Zophar and his friends as “bringers of lies and worthless physicians” (Job  13:4). What are we to make of Zophar’s statement with the “know-it-all” of youth,<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >10</FONT> when Job himself condemned him as a liar and having worthless teaching? Even if Job’s condemnation excluded Zophar’s rapturous statement of God’s glory; this praise still doesn’t mean God has an omnipresent essence (<I>ousia</I>).</div> <div>      In vernacular terms, “God’s glory is higher than the highest mountain, deeper than the deepest sea and wider than the widest ocean.” Does such praise mean God is ontologically omnipresent? Of course not. Such poetic praise gives glory and honor to God similar to “God is purer than the purest gold, more flawless than any diamond, brighter than any sun, more welcome than any sunrise and more precious than any pearl.” <I>These are poetic statements of praise to God and his glory, and aren’t expositions on his ontological essence.</I></div> <bR> <div> <B>7) Prov </B> <B>15:3</B> .</div> <bR> <div> <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" > </FONT> Prov <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" > </FONT>15:3 <I>The eyes of the LORD are in every place, beholding the evil and the good.</I></div> <bR> <div>      This passage isn’t about God being omnipresent or nonmaterial but is about his omniscience. Eyes ties in with vision which is perception. Perception ties in with knowledge. God knows everything. He is omniscient (2 Chr  16:9). </div> <bR> <div> <B>8) Isa </B> <B>66:1 / Acts</B> <B> 7:48-49.</B> </div> <bR> <div> <FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" > </FONT><FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" > </FONT>Isa <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" > </FONT>66:1 <I>Thus saith the LORD, The heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool:</I> where is the house that ye build unto me? And where is the place of my rest?</div> <bR> <div>   Acts<FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" > </FONT> 7:48-49 Howbeit <I>the most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands;</I> as saith the prophet<I>, Heaven [is] my throne, and earth [is] my footstool</I>: what house will ye build me? saith the Lord: or what [is] the place of my rest? [Matt<FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" > </FONT> 5:34-35].</div> <bR> <div>      These passages<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >11</FONT> are used by some anti-Mormons who claim God doesn’t dwell within temples made by humans because he isn’t in human form but is in a state of omnipresence. Unfortunately for them, these passages aren’t about an ontological status but dominion (Isa  66:1-2). Frankly, a literal translation gives the imagery of God being a giant which definitely doesn’t help their cause.</div> <div>      The universe and the earth belongs to God and he created all of it (Isa  66:2). It would be very odd for God to claim omnipresence or nonmateriality and use his creating the universe to justify it. “I am  omnipresent <I>because </I>I created the universe.” Non-sequitur. “I am  nonmaterial <I>because</I> I created the universe.” Another non-sequitur. “I own the universe and the earth <I>because </I>I created them all.” Ah- hah! Clearly, Isa  66:1 and Acts  7:48-49 are about God’s dominion and nothing else.</div> <bR> <div> <B>9) Isa </B> <B>57:15.</B> </div> <bR> <div> <FONT SIZE="3" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" > </FONT> Isa <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" > </FONT>57:15 For <I>thus saith the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity,</I> whose name is Holy; I dwell in the high and holy place, with him also that is of a contrite and humble spirit, to revive the spirit of the humble, and to revive the heart of the contrite ones.</div> <bR> <div>      Our opponents claim God inhabits eternity and interpret this verse to mean he is omnipresent and nonmaterial but this clearly distorts the passage. Why would God say he “dwells in the high and holy place” if he was omnipresent? Does this verse imply, in any way, God also dwells on earth and “in the low, unholy places?” It should if God was claiming to be omnipresent. Where does God live? In “eternity” just like I live in “Canada.” To “inhabit” is to live inside. God doesn’t fill up every nook and cranny of “eternity” with himself just like I don’t fill all of Canada with myself. He who “dwells in the high and holy place” is speaking to those who are upon the earth. Nothing about omnipresence  or nonmateriality.</div> <bR> <div> <B>10) Amos</B> <B> 9:2.</B> </div> <bR> <div> <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >  </FONT>Amos<FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" > </FONT> 9:2 <I>Though they dig into hell, thence shall mine hand take them; though they climb up to heaven, thence will I bring them down.</I></div> <bR> <div>      Our critics claim this passage proves God is omnipresent since one can’t get away from God whether going to heaven or hell. </div> <div>      Here’s the context:</div> <bR> <div> <FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="BernhardMod BT" >  </FONT>Amos<FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" > </FONT> 9:1-4 I saw the Lord standing upon the altar: and he said, Smite the lintel of the door, that the posts may shake: and cut them in the head, all of them; and I will slay the last of them with the sword: he that fleeth of them shall not flee away, and he that escapeth of them shall not be delivered. Though they dig into hell, thence shall mine hand take them; though they climb up to heaven, thence will I bring them down: And though they hide themselves in the top of Carmel, I will search and take them out thence; and though they be hid from my sight in the bottom of the sea, thence will I command the serpent, and he shall bite them: And though they go into captivity before their enemies, thence will I command the sword, and it shall slay them: and I will set mine eyes upon them for evil, and not for good.</div> <bR> <div>      It’s obvious that Amos  9:2 is about God’s power and not his ontological nature. There’s nowhere for these fugitives to hide since God can get them wherever they go and destroy them.</div> <bR> <div> <B>11) John </B> <B>14:11.</B> </div> <bR> <div>   John <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" > </FONT>14:11 Believe me that <I>I am in the Father, and the Father in me:</I> or else believe me for the very works' sake.</div> <bR> <div>      Our opponents claim this passage proves God the Father is a nonmaterial being who’s omnipresent and argue only such a being could have such interpenetration. This passage still doesn’t help our opponents since we are also supposed to be in interpenetration with the members of the Godhead (see MORMONISM: Sections 4 & 5), especially with Christ (who has a physical body), but these don’t mean we are omnipresent or nonmaterial.</div> <div>      It is a large leap of faith to equate Christ’s interpenetration with the Father to mean an ontological omnipresence (fills all things).</div> <bR> <div> <B>12) Matt </B> <B>18:20.</B> </div> <bR> <div> <FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="BernhardMod BT" >  </FONT>Matt <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" > </FONT>18:20 For <I>where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.</I></div> <bR> <div>      Our opponents claim this passage proves Jesus is an omnipresent being. In reality, this is about the interpenetration, complete unity and companionship the true followers of Christ enjoy. This is mentioned around fifty times in the Scriptures. It isn’t an ontological omnipresence or else we are ontologically omnipresent, since we are supposed to have such unity with all the members of the Godhead and with each other. This is a spiritual unity and “mystical” unity with the crucified body of Christ (see MORMONISM: Section 5). The context shows this passage isn’t about an ontological omnipresence:</div> <bR> <div>   Matt <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" > </FONT>18:19-20 Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of <I>my Father which is in heaven</I>. For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.</div> <bR> <div>      Where is the Father? In heaven. Is he described as being in an ontological omnipresent state? </div> <div>      Even if Matt  18:20 does teach Jesus can be in more than one place at one time, this wouldn’t mean he possesses an ontological omnipresence since it is conditional upon being gathered together in his name. Consequently, it is a <I>power</I> and means Jesus has a functional omnipresence.</div> <bR> <div> <B>13) Matt </B> <B>28:20.</B> </div> <bR> <div> <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" > </FONT> Matt <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" > </FONT>28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo,<I> I am with you alway</I>, even unto the end of the world. Amen.</div> <bR> <div>      Some anti-Mormons interpret the phrase in this passage “I am always with you” to mean God is an omnipresent being. However, Jesus was the one talking but he possesses a physical body which invalidates this passage as referring to ontological omnipresence but instead refers to companionship. Jesus is always with his disciples, even until the end of time just as Paul could say he was with the Christians in spirit (Col  2:5). When one says, “My father is always with me” doesn’t mean his father is an omnipresent being but simply means a spiritual companionship and intimacy.</div> <bR> <div> <B>14) Acts </B> <B>17:27-29.</B> </div> <bR> <div> <FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="BernhardMod BT" > </FONT> Acts <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" > </FONT>17:27-29 That they should seek<I> the Lord, </I>if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us: <I>For in him we live, and move, and have our being;</I> as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring. Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, <I>we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.</I><FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" ><I> </I></FONT></div> <bR> <div>      Our opponents understand the phrase, “For in him we live, and move, and have our being” to mean we are literally within an ontologically omnipresent God. In reality, this interpenetration of God with his righteous children (also see 1 Jn  4:12-16 which explains the conditions for this interpenetration) doesn’t mean he’s ontologically omnipresent or else the preceding phrase is contradictory which says, “[God isn’t] far from every one of us” which connotes closeness. This spatial description isn’t possible with an omnipresence since <I>it contrasts a discernable boundary.</I> If God is close to some, he may be far from others, which wouldn’t be possible with an omnipresent being since it isn’t possible to spatially isolate an omnipresent God. “... we shouldn’t think the nature of God is like gold, silver or stone that’s engraven by the ability of man.” Why not? “Since we are his offspring.” The nature of God is like us since we are his offspring.<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >12</FONT></div> <bR> <div>      This chapter has demonstrated <B>the Bible doesn’t contain a single passage that describes God as an ontological omnipresent being. </B></div> <div>      Sure, God has omnipresent <I>abilities</I>, but this is due to his power, not ontological state.</div> <div>      <B>The idea God is a</B>  <B> formless, nonmaterial (</B><I><B>asomatos</B></I><B>) omnipresent being is completely absent in the Bible</B> and those who insist on using it as the foundation for the “correct” understanding of the “Trinity” are gravely mistaken since it isn’t derived from the Bible but is actually from pagan Greek Philosophy. The fact that Mormonism has always maintained the alleged ontological “omnipresence” of God is false whereas every single non-Mormon Christian church has advocated (and continues to advocate) God is this formless, nonmaterial omnipresent being, shows the scriptural legitimacy of the theology of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. </div> <div>      Why do our critics approach the concept of God as him being an  nonmaterial spirit without form who only manifests himself anthropomorphically? Why can’t they visualize God in  anthropomorphic form who has the ability to simultaneously manifest himself in multiple places? </div> <div>      When one examines the oldest portions of the Bible without having any preconceived notions of God, it isn’t possible to avoid the fact that the God of the Pentateuch is an anthropomorphic God and isn’t a nonmaterial formless being.<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >13</FONT> The  anthropomorphic nature (especially in the shape of a human being) of God is constantly mentioned (Gen  1:26-27 & Gen  5:1-3; Gen  3:8;  9:6;  11:5;  18:1-3,13-14,16,21-33;  28:12-13;  32:30; Ex  17:6;  24:9-11;  33:11,18-23; Num  12:8; etc.),<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >14</FONT></div> <div>      This is a good argument, unfortunately for our critics, this  theophany was an isolated incident and every other passage that has God speaking face to face to humans has always been private and usually mentions  the humanoid characteristics of God as well. but these can’t be used to prove he has a physical body. The God of the OT was usually the pre-mortal Jesus Christ (see MORMONISM: Section 2), who was a spirit in anthropomorphic form instead of being formless (Eth  3:6-16).</div> <div>      Some may say that we are creating God into our image by giving him human attributes. This would cause other species to conceive of God according to their own image as well just as the god of the trees look like a tree or the god of the birds is a bird. </div> <div>      What is wrong with conceiving God in  human form? The Greek philosophers created a view of God that is alien to anything human or physical which became the standard of the later Jewish, Christian and Islamic scholars. If God created creatures somewhere in the universe that resembles a formless spirit, wouldn’t they be created literally in his image if he’s a formless spirit? Why insist on a concept completely opposite to anything we know just because it is philosophically satisfying?</div> <div>      Isn’t it odd that the being who created the entire universe (John  1:1-3; Rom  11:32-36; 1 Cor  8:6; Eph  3:9; Col  1:13-17; Heb  1:2;  2:10;  11:3; Rev  3:14; Mosi  5:15;  7:27; 3 Ne  9:15; D&C  38:1,3;  45:1-3;  93:10), who created trillions upon trillions of worlds, chose this tiny world in which to become mortal? Isn’t is also odd that of all the millions of species on this world he chose humanity as his mortal nature?</div> <div>      These two facts should tell us something about the importance of humanity. Given that Jesus has both “God” and “Man” natures, he would possess a human form for all of eternity. </div> <div>      The denigration of the human form by our opponents conflicts with the action of Jesus Christ. Instead of ridiculing the concept of God having a humanoid form, they should be giving thanks for the exaltation of the human appearance and nature.</div> <div>      When one examines what the Bible says concerning God the Father, we find that the concept of a physical anthropomorphic God has more validity than a nonmaterial entity who fills all of the creation. The Bible clearly describes a functionally omnipresent God; not an ontologically omnipresent God.</div> <div>      For further examination of this subject and the subsequent development of God as a nonmaterial being in three persons, see MORMONISM: Section 4 - The Godhead.</div> <bR> <div> <B>[ENDNOTES]</B></div> <bR> <div> 1. See the rapturously wonderful THE HIDDEN FACE OF GOD [HFG] (Friedman).</div> <div> 2. NELSON'S EXPOSITORY DICTIONARY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT (OT Section of Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words). pp. 81-82; THE ABRIDGED (STRONG'S) BDB HEBREW LEXICON. [SECB-H] 4392 from 4390; THEOLOGICAL WORDBOOK OF THE OLD TESTAMENT [TWOT]. 1195a; THE NEW BROWN-DRIVER-BRIGGS-GESENIUS HEBREW AND ENGLISH LEXICON. [BDBGHEL] pp. 569b-571a; WHITAKER'S REVISED BDB HEBREW-ENGLISH LEXICON [WBDB-R] (Hermeneutica BW 3.5). B5428; THEOLOGICAL DICTIONARY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. [TDOT] 8:297-308. Unwarranted assumption on p. 300.</div> <div> 3. HFG. p. 265. "... whatever we find, it will be everywhere, function everywhere; it will be in us, and we will be in it, as conceived in Big Bang and in Kabbalah; it will be in stars and in stones and in light and in flesh; it will determine everything, and explain everything, it will relate to our consciousness in some way; and it will impart awe." Dr Friedman's description is remarkably like the "light of truth" that God uses (D&C 88:5-13). The "light of truth" isn't the "essence" of God, it is the medium that gives God the ability to know everything in the universe and gives God the ability to travel anywhere in the universe. Any being who controls this medium can travel anywhere, know everything and do anything. It may also refer to the uncreated intelligence which is also called "the light of truth" (D&C 93:29). This "intelligence" is the foundation of our spirits and is the core of our being and of all things, both the living and the unliving.</div> <div> 4. LETTERS TO A MORMON ELDER (White). p. 66. White mentions the many places in the Bible where the term "right hand" has reference to a Semitic idiom that connotes a "position of power and authority." This fact isn't in dispute. Even today, a boss's "right hand man" refers to his assistant or the person with the most authority in the company, after the boss. </div> <bR> <div> What Mr. White conveniently overlooks, is Stephen in Acts 7:55-56 saw a vision in a book devoid of the highly symbolical imagery characteristic of the book of Revelations. The account says,</div> <bR> <div> But he being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up, steadfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God. And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing on the right hand of God.</div> <bR> <div> Stephen saw Jesus at Heavenly Father's right hand side with his eyes just prior to the moment of his death. It wasn't a symbolical reference to Jesus' authority for a number of reasons. Primarily because it was a vision and secondarily, because the entire narrative that Stephen gave was a literal account before the council including a literal quotation of the symbolical verse in Isa 66:1. Why would he give his entire narrative as a literal history of Israel and then suddenly talk symbolically only in this area?</div> <bR> <div> This account is patterned after a theme that runs throughout the NT. Jesus is described twenty times as sitting or standing at the right hand of God (Matt 22:44; 26:64; Mark 12:36; 14:62; 16:19; Luke 20:42; 22:69; Acts 2:33-35; 7:55-56; Rom 8:34; Eph 1:20; Col 3:1; Heb 1:3,13; 8:1; 10:12; 12:2; 1 Pet 3:22). Each time it was a literal setting, never a symbolical one.</div> <bR> <div> Mr. White gives 35 references in the Bible that mentions the term "right hand" as being a reference to a position of power. He runs into a problem because there are four times that many passages that explicitly show "right hand" has reference to a position or direction and if we take into account "right side" the tally comes up to around two hundred.</div> <bR> <div> Some anti-Mormons will focus on the phrase "on the right hand" and then argue that if this was a literal event, Jesus would've been standing directly on God's right hand, making the vision ridiculous. </div> <bR> <div> One of the Semitic expressions prevalent in the Bible just so happens to be "on the right hand." To a first century Jew, when a person was to stand or sit on another's right hand or left hand that meant a person was either standing or sitting at a certain person's right or left. This is identical with the English phrase, "on a person's right hand side" or "on a person's left hand side." (See 2 Sam 16:6; 1 Kng 2:19; 22:19; 2 Kng 23:13; Neh 8:4; 12:31; Job 23:9; Ps 45:9; Isa 9:20; Ezek 21:16; Zech 12:6; Matt 20:21,23; 22:44; 25:33-34,41; 26:64; 27:38; Mark 10:37,40; 12:36; 14:62; 15:27; 16:19; Luke 20:42; 22:69; 23:33; Acts 2:25,34; 7:55-56; 2 Cor 6:7; Col 3:1; Heb 1:3,13; 8:1; 10:12; 1 Pet 3:22).</div> <bR> <div> A comparison of Ps 110:1 with the five times it's explicitly quoted in the NT (Matt 22:44; Mark 12:36; Luke 20:42; Acts 2:34-35 & Heb 1:13) shows that in every instance, "sit thou at my right hand" was said as, "sit thou on my right hand" thus showing the interchangeability of the terms.</div> <div> 5. LME. p. 80.</div> <div> 6. STRONG'S EXHAUSTIVE CONCORDANCE OF THE BIBLE. HEBREW AND CHALDEE DICTIONARY. p. 54c; ABDBHL. 3557; TWOT. 962; BDBGHEL. p. 465a; WBDB-R. B4418.</div> <div> 7. SECB-H. p. 20a-b; ABDBHL. 1004; TWOT. 241; BDBGHEL. pp. 108b-110b; WBDB-R. B1163; TDOT. 2:107-116.</div> <div> 8. SECB-H. p. 80c; ABDBHL. 5375; TWOT. 1421; BDBGHEL. pp. 669b-672a; WBDB-R. B6550.</div> <div> 9. Philo. Leg. All. 1.44; Clem. Hom. 17.8.3; HELLENISTIC COMMENTARY TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. 368; THE WORKS OF PHILO. p. 29.</div> <div> 10. AN INTRODUCTION TO THE BOOKS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT (Oesterley & Robinson). p. 168.</div> <div> 11. Also see Barn. 13:13; m. 'Abot.6:10; THE LOST BOOKS OF THE BIBLE. p. 161.</div> <div> 12. Also see Wis. 13:10.</div> <div> 13. A HISTORY OF GOD (Armstrong). pp. 15-16.</div> <div> 14. Our critics will use Deut 5:4 which has Moses telling the Israelites that "The LORD talked with you face to face in the mount out of the midst of the fire." They will compare this with Deut 4:15 which also has Moses saying, " ... for ye saw no manner of similitude on the day that the LORD spake unto you in Horeb ... " They will then argue that the phrase "face to face" doesn't mean humans can see God's face or that God has a face because the Israelites were supposed to have seen God "face to face" but they didn't see any similitude or image when they saw God "face to face."</div> <bR> <div> This is a good argument, unfortunately for our critics, this theophany was an isolated incident and every other passage that has God speaking face to face to humans has always been private and usually mentions the humanoid characteristics of God as well.</div> <bR> <div> <A HREF="mailto:ewatson@shaw.ca" TARGET="_top" TITLE="mailto:ewatson@shaw.ca"><U>e-mail me!</U></A></div> <bR> </td> </tr></table></body>