Verb: Had Become
It should be read as Verb: Had Become . And/But the earth had become..
Genesis 1:2King James Version
And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
- @Gregory: I agree wholeheartedly with your post. You used a term that causes me pause -- "scientific explanation." Evolution with the long ages it proposes is not true science. It is story-telling and the story changes every time new true science determines facts that contradict the current narrative of the story-tellers. Thankfully, we now have a sizeable cadre of solid scientists who are also Christian. These folks are producing a wide variety of scientific findings that strongly support the global flood. Thank God for godly scientists.
- Funny thing is that we all have the same facts and evidence. The difference is how we approach and interpret them, whether from preconceived bias or letting the facts and evidence speak for themselves. Ultimately, they will always prove the Bible true and accurate when given enough time even we don't yet have all the answers presented. Is that a biased approach for me to say that? Yes and no, as so far it regardless of me still proves to be true every time in the subjects and topics the Bible addresses. My bias may be that I expect that it will continue always to prove the Bible true and accurate. The Bible is not a science textbook, but it does support and not contradict true science and has even led to scientific discoveries by people investigating what it says about what we didn't know until modern times, such as rivers at the bottom of the ocean, lightning causing rain to fall, etc.). Many scientists have found their discoveries only increase their faith.
- Often atheists like to say, There is no evidence for creation or " Jesus didn't exist" or "there is no evidence", This is like a lawyer, such as OJ's starting the defense with " there is absolutely no evidence that is valid against my client". Why does such a liar (I mean lawyer) start out with that case? It's like a pre-battle, if he can convince that there is NO evidence, then the battle of pro and con evidences never has to be fought. It's like a preemptive strike. Quite strategic but a sign that the lawyer not concerned with the absolute truth but only to win his clients case. When discussing truth amongst philosopher (whether secular or religious ) as opposed to lawyers, if the philosopher goal is to proceed through at an unbiased, alTRUistic search of reality, and open to whatever is found, then they will not refute evidence before it is even on the table. This is why I will not go long with someone who states "there is absolutely no evidence" or "Jesus never fulfilled one prophecy...". I think it's better to be courageous and be more like a archeologist than a lawyer, if one is not afraid to find the full truth whatever it may be.