[tacticalogic]

The fact that they mention the non existent status of the earth in this way, does not mean exactly the opposite, that it did indeed exist at that point. Such a thing would be absurd and a contradiction of terms.

That is precisely why I question whether the description of "void and without form" might more accuratly translate as "lifeless and featureless".

[csense]

That is precisely why I question whether the description of "void and without form" might more accuratly translate as "lifeless and featureless"

I'm not sure I understand why you think this follows from my statement. I don't know how much simpler I can be in my explanations. God tells us right from the start that he is the one who created everything. That first line is not yet part of the chronology of creation, which Genesis one is.

The second line actually does begin the chronology, but only in the sense that he gives us the status of those things mentioned in the first line.

Then the actual chronology of creation begins.

I don't understand why that is so difficult to understand. Now, what exactly the "waters" were....that's an interesting question.