question concerning a Hebrew word.

This is one in a series of mysteries concerning the KJV. in spite of differing opinions mine is that the KJV translators did not communicate too well with each other.

Hayah is a kind of general purpose Hebrew word with a wide scope of meaning and nuances.
SIMO they played it safe because it fit quite well in vs2 "and the earth was-hayah without..."

Young earth vs. Old earth was NOT an issue in1611. Just about EVERYONE was young earth.

 

The AV translators worked in committees in separate places, not as a group, so thus, they didn't communicate too much. ASlso, they didn't work full-time on their translation because they still had livings to earn, & their work on the AV was free. So there was no consensus of opinion over the best renderings of many words with multiple English meanings.

 

Hayah can't always mean "to become". E.g. Exodus 12:4a, "And if the household hayah too little for the lamb..." A household is, or isn't, too little for the lamb. It doesn't become too little. The word is frequently used where "to become", or "come to pass", makes no sense. And, that's ok, because the first meaning from the OT Lexicon is "to be", not "to become."

The Earth "was" without form is accurate, as the Earth, at the time, is or isn't with form. To translate it as the earth "become" without form injects a meaning into the verse that isn't required by the word hayah. "To become" should only be used when the context implies it.

If the Septuagint and the Mesoretic text (the later being used by the KJV) disagree, I trust the Septuagint more, and it doesn't say "became" in Genesis 1:2.

 

Data dump

Now, at times the verb “to be” in the perfect tense can have an obvious active force. Certainly 3:22 says, “Behold, the man has become [hāyá] like one of us.” But for two reasons it cannot have this force in 1:2. First, if the writer had intended v. 2 to be read as a sequence to v. 1, he would never have used the construction he did: waw consecutive plus subject plus verb (in the perfect). Instead it would be: waw conversive attached to the verb (in the imperfect) plus subject. Thus, one would expect wattehî hāʾāreṣ rather than what we do have: wehāʾāreṣ hāyeṯá.
Second, in other circumstantial clauses the verb hāyá in the perfect tense normally carries its stative sense (3:1, “the serpent was wiser”; 29:16, “and Rachel was pretty; 34:5, “his sons had been [or were] in the field”; Exod. 1:5, “and Joseph was in Egypt”; Jon. 3:3, “now Nineveh was an exceedingly great city”). The burden of proof, then, is upon those who insist that here we have an instance of hāyá in a circumstantial clause with the meaning “became.”
We have already voiced our reasons for not interpreting tōhû wāḇōhû as a kind of early Sheol or Hades against which God’s wrath has been loosed. Instead, we see here a reference to the situation prior to specific creation, a situation of formlessness but over which God’s spirit superintends.
Syntactically, two possibilities remain in understanding v. 2. First, it may describe a condition concurrent with that described in v. 3, “the earth being without form and void, God said.… “This is the approach of Orlinsky, Speiser, and others. The most serious objection to this view is that contemporaneous circumstance is adequately handled by a verbless clause. We would expect wehāʾāreṣ tōhû wāḇōhû. Hence, we opt for the second possibility, that on syntactical grounds v. 2 be understood as distinct from and prior to v. 3.
In sum, the position taken here is that v. 1 is an opening statement functioning both as a superscription and as a summary. As such, it is the functional equivalent to the colophon “these are the generations of,” which is the introductory sentence to each of the remaining major divisions of Genesis.
Verse 2 then describes the situation prior to the detailed creation that is spelled out in vv. 3ff. It has long been observed that the creation days fall into the pattern of a movement from generalization to particularization. Days 1, 2, and 3 parallel days 4, 5, and 6. Thus day 1, the creation of light, goes with day 4, the creation of particular kinds of lights.43 We suggest that this same movement occurs in v. 2 (generalization) and vv. 3–31 (particularization).

Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, Chapters 1–17, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1990), 116–117.

**************************
1. The verb “was” in Gen. 1:2 is properly translated; it cannot mean “became.” If became were the meaning, the Hebrew verb hayah would have a prefixed lamed, which is not the case here.

2. The clause in v. 2a is a noun clause and therefore represents a state of being, not of becoming. It is also a circumstantial clause, which in Hebrew syntax must describe what precedes it. Thus, “the earth was without form” is a descriptive expansion of the prior statement, “God created the heaven and the earth.”

3. The and at the beginning of v. 2 is the Hebrew waw and is connected with the noun “earth.” According to some of the best grammarians, it must therefore introduce an explanation of the preceding statement. This force of the waw makes it linguistically impossible to hold that Gen. 1:2 teaches a temporal gap between it and the previous verse. It makes it certain that v. 2 must be understood as describing a state of being that is contemporaneous with the main verb “created” (v. 1).

Alan Cairns, Dictionary of Theological Terms (Belfast; Greenville, SC: Ambassador Emerald International, 2002), 191.

**************************
2118 הָיָה (hā·yā(h))
became | 87 of 2808 (only verses in Genesis are listed here)

Ge 2:7 then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.

Ge 2:10 A river flowed out of Eden to water the garden, and there it divided and became four rivers.

Ge 19:26 But Lot’s wife, behind him, looked back, and she became a pillar of salt.

Ge 20:12 Besides, she is indeed my sister, the daughter of my father though not the daughter of my mother, and she became my wife.

Ge 21:20 And God was with the boy, and he grew up. He lived in the wilderness and became an expert with the bow.

Ge 24:67 Then Isaac brought her into the tent of Sarah his mother and took Rebekah, and she became his wife, and he loved her. So Isaac was comforted after his mother’s death.

Ge 39:2 The Lord was with Joseph, and he became a successful man, and he was in the house of his Egyptian master.

Ge 47:20 So Joseph bought all the land of Egypt for Pharaoh, for all the Egyptians sold their fields, because the famine was severe on them. The land became Pharaoh’s.

Ge 49:15 He saw that a resting place was good, and that the land was pleasant, so he bowed his shoulder to bear, and became a servant at forced labor.

 

Interesting and informative thread!
Genesis 1:1-3 NET
1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 Now the earth was without shape and empty, and darkness was over the surface of the watery deep, but the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the water.
3 God said, "Let there be light.” And there was light!

The NET footnote agrees with Deacon's post #5, verse 2 should be translated "was" and not "became" based on the grammar.

The widely accepted view is that verse 1 provides an overview of what God accomplished, verse 2 sets the scene prior to the creation described in verse 3 and following.

Some take it a bit further, the earth being without shape and empty or void means the earth did not exist yet and its creation is described on day three.