Question for everyone

[adamswildhoney]

Tonight at dinner my family and I were dicussing how God is "supposedly everywhere". I use supposedly bc my mom raised the question if God is everywhere then wouldnt he be in Hell?

So my question is this is God everywhere or is he just in Heaven and on earth watching us??


I honestly dont know what to think or what my opinion is on this subject.

 

[daisybean]

IMO...it's however you want to look at...if you want to believe that God is in everything, she is. If you want to believe that God watches over us from heaven that is true too.

Personally, I find little bits of her in everything.

 

[sulawesigirl4]

Maybe another question that should be asked is "is there truly a hell as we have been led to believe?" Ie. is it possible that God would choose to simply let those persons who choose not to accept his offer of "eternal life" have their human life and then pass into oblivion? I have been doing a study on this topic and am finding that there is good reason to believe that this is what the Bible seems to indicate if you do more than just pull out random verses out of context.

 

[spanisheyes]

God is Omnipresent

The attribute of God by which He fills the universe in all its parts and is present everywhere at once. Not a part, but the whole of God is present in every place. This is true of all three members of the Trinity. They are so closely related that where one is the others can be said to be, also.

Therefore, when man is sinning God is there. If a child is doing something a parent has told him not to do, God is there. There is no place man can go to hide from God.

Psalm 139:8
If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there.

Jeremiah 23:23,24
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 heaven and earth? saith the Lord.

Ephesians 2:22
In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

Psalm 113:5
Who is like unto the Lord our God, who dwelleth on high.

Psalm 123:1
Unto thee lift I up mine eyes, O thou that dwellest in the heavens.

I Kings 8:27
But will God indeed dwell on the earth? behold, the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house that I have builded?

Matthew 6:9
After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.

Hebrews 1:3
Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

I Corinthians 1:27
But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty.

Matthew 18:20
For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

Romans 10:6,7
But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? Or, Who shall descend into the deep?

Romans 8:9
But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

There is no place to go where God is not already there.

Oh, and sis, I'd like to hear more about your studies on hell as well...sounds very interesting.

Chris

 

[hippy]

Tonight at dinner my family and I were dicussing how God is "supposedly everywhere". I use supposedly bc my mom raised the question if God is everywhere then wouldnt he be in Hell?

I've always been taught that "hell" is eternal separation from God... which would mean that he isn't there.

BUT I've been thinking a lot (thanks to my Philosophy class) about the mind v. the body. And I'm not sure if, when people say "eternal separation from God" they are talking about the mind or the body. Because I think that a mind can be separated from God (i.e. in hell) but a physical body cannot because God is manifestly there.

It's a sticky question

And sula, I can't wait for you to write a book about your studies

 

[adamswildhoney]

like Hippy said this is a sticky question and one that is hard to really find the answer to. I agree with what Sula has to say too.


I thought it was interesting that my mom brought that up but as soon as she did my gramma instantly said NO that God is only in Heaven and on Earth watching us. So my gramma believes that God is everywhere BUT hell and so I asked why wouldnt God be in hell and she replied that Hell is no place for him.


Its really weird for me bc I have all these questions concerning faith and I wanna see both sides of the story before I believe something. Yet if the Catholic Church comes out with a new "rule" my gramma instantly follows it without questions asked.


sidenote: I would love to hear about you studies too Sula.

 

[Blacksword]

There was actually significant debate in the early church over weather those who reject God cease to exist upon death or are eternal and are separted from God. I've heard that Paul was of the cease to exist camp. It all depends on how you interpret Christ's staements. To me it seems like there is ome sort of hell where those who have rejected God are sperated from Him. Other than that God is present everywhere.

Spanish Eyes the translation of the bible you are using isn't quite correct. Psalm 139:8 should read as She'ol not Hell. The Istraelites dindn't have a concept of Hell as such. All souls upon deal passed into She'ol which more or less means the grave. It was usually seen as a grey sleeplike state witha heaven condition represented by nearness to God while a hellish condition was to be distant from God.

 

[nbcrusader]

Tonight at dinner my family and I were dicussing how God is "supposedly everywhere". I use supposedly bc my mom raised the question if God is everywhere then wouldnt he be in Hell?

The question mixes two concepts of "everywhere". As Chris points out with the many references, one of the atributes of God is that He is Omnipresent. Nothing is out of the reach of God and He can be in all places at once.

As for Hell, again this is not out of God's reach, but that doesn't mean He is "part" of hell.

I understand Hell as both eternal separation from God and eternal punishment. I realize that this runs contrary to our human desire to limit punishment - that a loving God would do such a thing.

Sula - I too would like to see more of your study.

Blacksword - it appears that Chris was using the KJV. There are some denominations which insist that this is the only authentic translation. The NIV uses the term "depths" with a footnote to the Hebrew term She'ol.

 

[Whortense]

(blank)

 

[melon]

The KJV and the NIV are both terribly flawed. I wouldn't use either for serious scholarship.

Melon

 

[nbcrusader]

Melon, which is your preferred translation?

We have many different translations at home.

 

[adamswildhoney]

(blank)

????? explain

 

[spanisheyes]

Melon...I should have used the translation I was most comfortable using, and that is the New American Standard Version which is as close to the original manuscripts as possible. I should point out that my above post wasn't any of my writing, but taken from a site on the omnipresence of God, and the translation they used was the King James Version which wouldn't have been my translation of choice.

Chris

 

[Klaus]

Adamswildhoney:
imho God is above us, but he's working in everyone of us if we let him.


Melon: i never read the NIV but i heared good things about that translation - can you give me examples about flaws?

 

[nbcrusader]

Klaus,

Translations differ based on source material, translation method, and other considerations. I can post more on this later today.

NIV is generally a good translation for readability. For scholarship, translations should be compared and original hebrew and greek examined.

 

[melon]

The problem with the NIV is that it takes traditional (conservative) interpretations of passages and exaggerates them.

Take "yadha" in Sodom and Gomorrah. It goes from "to know" in its most literal translation to homosexual activity in the NIV, despite the fact that such a translation is disputed by most independent scholars and several OT passages also translate it otherwise. IMO, the word should be translated as "to know," due to its reasonable ambiguity.

The NIV does that a lot, and it is not reliable.

Melon

 

[melon]

Melon...I should have used the translation I was most comfortable using, and that is the New American Standard Version which is as close to the original manuscripts as possible. I should point out that my above post wasn't any of my writing, but taken from a site on the omnipresence of God, and the translation they used was the King James Version which wouldn't have been my translation of choice.

Chris

I am generally displeased with all translations, although I will give some credit to the Catholic editions for not only putting in contextual footnotes, but also not shying away from independent scholarship and criticism. However, I have some issues with some of their translations as well.

In the ideal sense, I would like a Dead Sea Scrolls translation done by scholars independent of any specific religious affiliation or ideology. Too many religions have too many agendas and traditions to uphold to do it correctly.

Melon

 

[sulawesigirl4]

Lately, I have been digging the NRSV. I am not all that enamoured of the NIV these days.

 

[Blacksword]

I've been sticking to NRSV as well. It's been coming into use a lot in the Presbyterian church her in Canada (or atleast where I am). I've been told it si a decent scholarly translation. And though it took a while to get used to I much prefer it to the more popular NIV. NIV is nice to read but I find it rather vague and wordy now.

Speaking of mistranslations I have heard that the verse that is usually translated as something like if you divorce your spouse and marry another person you commit adultry, should be translated as you will be stigmatized as comminiting adultry.
If I recall correctly it has something to do with the fact that the greek verb is in the passive tense and was translated in the active sense or something like that.

 

[hippy]

In the ideal sense, I would like a Dead Sea Scrolls translation done by scholars independent of any specific religious affiliation or ideology. Too many religions have too many agendas and traditions to uphold to do it correctly.

 

[Klaus]

Melon: thanks for explaining.

nbcrusader/melon:
The multiple meanings of translations is one reason why i like the Menge translation when he feels unsure there's a * and at the end of the page he tells me the multiple meanings.
Anyway i guess you need the spirit to understand a bible without it you can't get the message even if you have the best translations - if the spirit is with you you get the meaining also the translation might be imperfect.

Melon: thanks again for that example..

Klaus

 

[melon]

Speaking of mistranslations I have heard that the verse that is usually translated as something like if you divorce your spouse and marry another person you commit adultry, should be translated as you will be stigmatized as comminiting adultry.
If I recall correctly it has something to do with the fact that the greek verb is in the passive tense and was translated in the active sense or something like that.

Hehe...I know this one off the top of my head. Frightening, yes?

This is how the Catholic New American Bible (NAB) lists for Matthew 19:8-9:

"He said to them, "Because of the hardness of your hearts Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery."

Now this is what the NIV translates (again, why I'm disgusted with the NIV):

"Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."

The contentious word is "porneia," a Greek word that literally means "blood mixing." It is a reference, however, to Leviticus' purity laws, and, because Matthew is originally a Jewish Christian text (i.e., they believed in upholding the entire Mosaic Law, including dietary restrictions), they were concerned with such things that would not necessarily apply to us Gentile Christians. The Catholic translation is ambiguous, but puts it the most correctly: this is about Mosaic Law, not infidelity. If I had to translate this, I would have translated "porneia" as "incestuous," because the Leviticus purity laws literally read out like this: "A son cannot marry his mother," etc. But, again, because this is an argument of Mosaic Law, we are not subject to it anyway, due to our Pauline Gentile Christian ancestry.

So where did this adultery "exception clause" originate? The King James Bible, where they merely mistranslated "porneia." However, since this was the first English Bible for the masses, versus the Latin Bibles that clergy read to the masses, people actually believe in this "exception clause." However, it is terribly wrong. Jesus is against divorce in all instances of the Gospels, if translated correctly.

Melon

 

[nbcrusader]

The contentious word is "porneia," a Greek word that literally means "blood mixing."

I've reviewed a number of different Greek dictionaries and saw a variety of definitions of porneia. Blood mixing was included in one of the dictionaries and was the most restrictive definition given. Other definitions were much broader, essentially defining the word as "sex outside of marriage".

 

[melon]

I've reviewed a number of different Greek dictionaries and saw a variety of definitions of porneia. Blood mixing was included in one of the dictionaries and was the most restrictive definition given. Other definitions were much broader, essentially defining the word as "sex outside of marriage".

It's probably circular reasoning. Because we have traditionally defined "porneia" as adulterous, etc., it is probably popping up in the dictionaries that way. That doesn't mean it is correct, especially in context of the Leviticus purity codes that "porneia" refers to.

Melon

 

[verte76]

This is a perplexing topic. It defies reason as we know it. What do we mean when we say God has a particular location? Doesn't location limit, and isn't God supposed to be infinite, and thus beyond limitation of any kind? Where is heaven? Shouldn't that be infinite too? It's also bounded, according to our raw reasoning faculties. Sometimes all one can say is "human reason can't fathom it" because human reason also limits.

 

[adamswildhoney]

I agree with you verte it is a really perplexing topic thats why my parents and I were talking about it for over 2 hrs that night

 

[80sU2isBest]

I believe in hell. But I don't belive that hell is a place "God just decides to send people who don't believe in him". Here is my belief about hell.

God is perfect. He is lacking in nothing. The Bible tells us that darkness and light cannot abide together. Therefore, to live in God's kingdom, it is a spiritual necessity that a person be perfect. That's just the way it is. Well, if it were up to man's good works, no one would be in Heaven, because it is not possible for man to attain perfection by his works. However, Christ died on the cross to give mankind a way to escape hell. You see, when a person becomes a Christian he is a new creation. Many verses in the Bible, including 2 Corinthians 5:17) tell us that to born again means to be regenerated - when a person becomes a Christian, his sinful nature (his sinful spirit) is destroyed, crucified with Christ. In its place is a new nature, the nature of Christ, the Holy Spirit. The fless is still neutral (can be used for good or evil deeds), but the spirit is perfectly clean - spotless, because it it is joined by the Holy Spirit. This new perfect spirit is what allows mankind to enter heaven.

 

[sulawesigirl4]

I don't believe in hell as it has been portrayed through much of church history, simply because I don't take the natural immortality of the soul to be a given (not to mention the lack of convincing Biblical proof as to the continued existence of those who choose to reject God's offer of eternal life). Life is a gift of God's. Eternal life even more so.

 

[80sU2isBest]

Well, sula, I'm not really writing this in the spirit of argument, but I do knwo of some verses that describe hell, some by Jesus, in fact. I know that the subject of hell is tabu these days (even by preachers!), but I think that if there is a hell, we are doing a great disservice not to warn people about it. But I see a certain hypocrisy among those of us who say we believe in a literal hell. If we really believed it deep down in our souls, we would be telling people about Jesus non-stop, because hell is a horrible place. Anyway, here are some verses:

"And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life" (Matthew 25:46) Christ, describing the great day of judgment, tells of the separation of the wicked and the righteous using these words.

Christ says in Matthew 11:24: "Nevertheless I say to you that it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for you." The verses in Matthew indicate that the people in Capernaum will receive a greater punishment on judgment day than those who had lived in Sodom.

In Matthew 49-50, the Lord describes the fate of the wicked: "So it will be at the end of the age; the angels shall come forth, and take out the wicked from among the righteous, and will cast them into the furnace of fire; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth."

The Lord tells us of the guest without wedding clothes who was cast "into outer darkness" (Matthew 22:13)

Revelation describes hell as "a lake of fire burning with brimstone" (Revelation 19:20)

Romans 2:5 tells us: "But because of your stubborness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God."

 

[anitram]

I prefer the Hindu teaching of 'tat tvam asi' as a descriptor of what we are and what God is.

But I sense we're talking about the Christian definition of hell and God's presence in the world, so I disgress.