?In this paper, I will examine the differing views regarding God’s omnipotence and omnipresence, and I will illustrate how the two terms are inextricably tied but not interchangeable. Genesis alludes to two sides of the same God: one where God is distant yet his omnipotence is evident; and another in which God is omnipresent while incredibly relational. I argue that these two sides of the same God can be combined and must be combined to perceive one aspect of the true nature of God. This paper argues that God’s omnipotence cannot exist without his omnipresence and vice versa, and that through God’s power and presence, there is an overwhelming relationality that gives insight to his nature. God’s omnipotence begins with creation. God forms both the heavens and earth, and then moves on to heavenly bodies, light and dark, stars, creatures, and finally man. Historically, omnipotence, Gonzalez (2007) reports, was not always the term applied to God’s power. In the 2nd Century, the preferred term was pantokrator, or “all-ruling,” because it implied that God was not only powerful, but that his presence and power were included in the “all” that God rules over. This term, however, was later replaced by omnipotens (translated to omnipotence): a change that redefined the interpretation of God’s power to mean that one is able to “do whatever one wishes, to have no limits to one’s power” (pg. 21). Gonzalez argues that in Christian theology, omnipotens is quite problematic. It limits God to being either a God that only does what is good or a God whose works are already good. This simplification of God’s power is the direct result of the complexity of omnipotence, or simply, the concept of omnipotence is difficult to understand without crossing over into blasphemy. Gonzalez argues that God’s omnipotence is actually defined by pantokrator; his power relates and resides over all things. Omnipotence and omnipresence are almost inseparable as one reads through Gonzalez’s argument. Even pantokrator refers to a God whose power is not limited to one being, but refers to all of creation. It presides everywhere at all times, implying that there is omnipresence to God’s omnipotence. Alexander Even-Chen (2007) examines the struggle to understand God’s omnipresence in his essay responding to Abraham Joshua Heschel, a Jewish theologian and Rabbi. Chen writes, “According to Heschel, man's soul is at times awakened to the fact that sources of mystery may eclipse our ruled and orderly vision of the world. The term ‘omnipresence’ signifies the limitations of human reasoning” (pg. 58). The connection between God’s omnipresence and omnipotence is further examined by Fretheim’s argument that “while God is will be pervasively present, God lets creation be what it was created to be, without micromanagement, tight control, or interference every time something goes wrong” (2005, pg. 7). He argues for a “hands-off” God who is both present but not controlling. This arg