To actually have Nothing is just that. Nothing. To even be able to name something er....I mean nothing, goes against the principle of "nothing". Because "nothing" if there is such a thing, isn't actually there. If there is such a thing as "nothing", then behind all of it there was "something" (like God) prior to it, that could speak something into existance, as the bible says.
“Have you understood the expanse of the earth?
Tell Me, if you know all this.
19 “Where is the way to the dwelling of light?
And darkness, where is its place,
20 That you may take it to its territory
And that you may discern the paths to its home?
So you have a problem with Krauss' definition of nothing, but you have no problem in using that definition to explain gods involvement? And your best, most logical explanation of something coming from "nothing" is from being spoken into existence? Surely this is just hyperbole, unless god now has a larynx, tongue, mouth and air to breathe etc, but of course he doesn't because they're all material properties. So god didn't speak anything into existence, it was done via some unknown means - an unknown mean indistinguishable from any other means we can currently conceive of.
You're basically talking gobbledygook and making stuff up on the spot, because we simply don't have the language to articulate the counter intuitiveness of such a concept. It's the same with Krauss' use of the word "nothing", but unlike you with "speak", he's at least tried to give us an alternative definition to its common usage.
PS - I always find it amusing when random scripture is quoted as a eureka moment when the language used in it matches a label we have attached to a new discovery. You should have a random scriptural bullshit game of snap with a Muslim. I'd be happy to provide the popcorn.