Genesis 1:2a

Hebrew:
וְהָאָרֶץ הָיְתָה תֹהוּ וָבֹהוּ

KJV:
And the earth was without form, and void;

Comments:
And the earth was: When the "and" in Hebrew is attached to a noun ("earth") rather than a verb (like "was"), it is disjunctive rather than conjunctive. That is, the wording of the text implies a break between verses 1 and 2. However, there is no reason in this text for asserting a gap in history rather than simply in the narrative. For instance, reading verse 1 as a heading and everything following as an account of what the heading introduces makes a much plainer interpretation than construing a epochal gap with a fallen race between verses 1 and 2.

without form, and void: These words are also used in proximity to one another in Jeremiah 4:22-28 (23). There, the Lord appeals to Judah to repent in order to avoid the kind of judgment which would return their land to its state before it was prepared for them. It is not, as some have seen it, a mystical description of the world after an intervening fall before the creation of Adam. Without form and void means just what it says: undefined and empty. "Without form" appears as "desert" in Deuteronomy 32:10 while "void" appears as "emptiness" in Isaiah 34:11. The fact that the cosmos (the heavens and the earth) is primitively without form and void also explains why the days of creation are paralleled as they are. The first three days give form; the last three days fill each form created in the first three. So the first day is light and dark, the fourth day (the first day of the last three) is the sun, moon, and stars--the objects for the form of light. The second day is waters and firmament; the fifth day fish and fowl. The third and sixth days (each of which has two declarations of good rather than one like all the other days) are land/plants and animals/man respectively.

Expanded Paraphrase:
But God had not yet given shape or content to the creation, so it was undefined and empty.

Genesis 1:1

Hebrew:
בְּרֵאשִׁית בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים אֵת הַשָּׁמַיִם וְאֵת הָאָֽרֶץ׃

KJV:
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Comments:
In the beginning: The word for "beginning" is "head", the same as in the Jewish new year, "Rosh" Hashanah. The point is that it indicates priority. It comes first chronologically here. The implication of this creative, chronological priority is also purposive as Paul sees it in Colossians 1:16-18. In John 1:1-3, John appeals to the Septuagint's wording (the Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures) in the first few words then makes it clear that Jesus is the actor in the creation.

God: Moses uses "Elohim" for "God" rather than "Yahweh" in this passage about creation, even though it is likely that the meaning of "Yahweh" is something like "the One who causes to be." As Exodus 6:3 makes clear, however, Yahweh is a name known fully only in covenant. (They were aware of the name before then--hence Abraham naming a place Yahweh-Jireh in Genesis 22--but not in its covenantal sense.) Moses begins to use that name for God in chapter 2:4, where God's specific, relational provision for people begins.

created: Although this act certainly is "ex nihilo" (out of nothing,) that fact is not inherent in the word (which is also used, for instance, about whales in vs 21.) The significance of the word for "created" is that it is only used in reference to the activity of God, and probably has more to do with the newness of His creative acts.

the heavens and the earth: Exodus 20:3-4 reveals how important the distinction between the first and last half of this verse is. There is a Creator-God. And He creates a cosmos. But the two are in no way to be mixed or confused. Also, the phrase "the heavens and the earth" is a merism--a way of including everything by naming the extremes.

Expanded Paraphrase:
Before anything else, God created everything there is, from the heavens above to the earth below.

The Huge Success of Liberalism on Radio? Yes.

Here’s a mistaken idea: practically all of the significant radio hosts on the air today are conservative. A survey of talk show hosts certainly seems to justify that claim. The traditional pantheon of Rush, Laura, Mark, and Shawn create a practically monolithic wall of sound five days a week. While laced with humor, sarcasm, and mostly jesting ad hominems, their presentations are as a matter of course rational, propositional, and argumentative (in the good sense) in nature.
Here’s the origin of the mistake: when liberal ideologues tried to compete with the conservative-talk-show-hosts (hyphenation provided to identify what is an idiomatic expression in our country) on their own playing field they failed miserably. In particular, Air America stank and sank. There was no lack of talent. It was just a terrible idea. How many people willing to think rationally for three hours at a stretch as a form of entertainment are going to buy into the vapid ideas of myopic liberalism? Just like every other example of a conservative/liberal comparison, and in every venue where it is played out Adam Smith’s free market embarrasses Karl Marx’s dialectical materialism. In this case, the pretense of “equal time” succumbs to the knob-turning liberty of intelligent listeners. But if that line of reasoning is at all correct, (and it is arguably so), from where arises the purported mistake?
Here’s the what the conservatives have mistakenly overlooked: liberal radio is alive, well, and a dominant force in American culture. But people have looked for the wrong thing. Why would a movement or ideology whose nature is to oppose standardized truth (and therefore standards of accountability) choose to exchange discourse in a setting of propositional truth? To compete on that stage is to lose before beginning. So liberals reach just as great an audience as conservatives, while promoting their agenda not through propositions and arguments, but through emotive, relational, and culturally provocative entertainment. Howard Stern is not a fluke. He is the means by which liberal ideology actually succeeds at leading a huge portion of the culture away from the normative ideologies of conservatives.
And conservatives should recognize the issue. The only other option is to find after successfully winning all the debates, that they have lost the election and war anyway. After all, the choir already believes.