Which Bible are you looking in? Even my Strong's concordance doesn't support this....please elaborate.
I'm looking at Strong's (an old one).
And the earth(776) was(1961) without form,(8414) and void;(922) and darkness(2822) was upon(5921) the face(6440) of the deep.(8415) And the Spirit(7307) of God(430) moved(7363) upon(5921) the face(6440) of the waters.(4325)
(Genesis 1:2)
was(1961) - became
without form(8414) - lie waste / desolation
void(922) - ruin
The direct reading of the Bible (Genesis 1) implies strongly that God created the world in a formless state and it was in that state until God put things on it.
Two things to consider here.
(1) First, you're statement is flat wrong. When you read it in it's original translation, and consider that the word "was" means "became", then it implies that it was not "without form" at some former time.
(2) Peter and other books make references to previous Earth ages. Of course, this is consistent with Genesis. It's really quite plain to see.
Crackpot nonsense. His science is incredibly screwed up.
Such brash statements demand self inspection.
Have you watched his lectures? What exactly is crackpot?
Is it possible that you're frightened by ideas you're not familiar with? Is it possible that you're more interested in pleasing the emperor than serving truth?
There are physicists, astronomers, mathematicians, and scientists from every other discipline who believe and accept his work.
I have watched his U.N. lecture along with his University of Ohio and JPL lectures numerous times and have found no fundamental flaws with his logic. He's an excellent speaker and develops his theories with expertise.
Do you know that his discoveries on Mars led to predictions about Neptune that turned out to be accurate?
Do you understand Hoagland's statements about the important differences in Maxwellian and Newtonian math, and why they are so important today?
Please tell us exactly what you believe is flawed. I'll gladly read it and consider your case.
I saw the deep space data streams and helped decode them into pictures. No structures on Mars....sorry! As a Christian, aren't you supposed to be discerning about information that you accept as correct teaching?
Your statement is irrelevant because the technical process of helping to decode data streams into graphics has nothing to do with the physical interpretation of the content of the pictures.
It's like saying, "I can do framing" so that makes me an architect.
Again, I would implore you to check out the 3 lectures that I mentioned earlier. He gave them to your colleagues. Why don't you watch them before throwing them away.
Don't you agree that there is much too much rash judgement in the world today? I do hope so.
"Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance."—Albert Einstein
