First, if you aren't familiar with the theory, Rich has written an article that details some of its specifics. You may want to read the summary there. With that said, I think the emphasis on hayah is totally misplaced. "Was" or "had become" really isn't the primary point, oddly enough. Even if it were, I doubt any of us here are that advanced in our Hebrew studies to be able to do any more than quote a commentary we read on the subject--you can always find authorities to support your claims!
Let's, instead, look at the conjunction (or the lack-there-of) between 1:1 and 1:2. Rich notes in the listed article that both OEC's and GT's would accept a gap between 1:1 and 1:2. If you check the LXX, they translate the opening words of Gen. 1:2 with en de. En, roughly, means "was," and de is a very, very weak connective word that shows contrast (usually). In Greek, de rarely starts a sentence (unlike kai), so we aren't suprised it doesn't start here. Unfortunately, I can't read Hebrew, so I don't know what the opening conjunction in 1:2 is, but, if we are to accept the authority of the LXX, should one exist at all (the Greek method of writing was to always start with a conjunction, especially de or kai) . . . the NASB simply renders 1:2 "The earth was . . ."
So, exegetically, there is no Scriptural basis, it seems to me, for arguing that 1:1 and 1:2 form a continuous, unbreakable thought. We could probably put the English "now" at the beginning of 1:2 and have an acceptable translation. If nothing else, the LXX allows for this--"now" is well within the semantic range of de.
Look at Genesis 1:1-2 this way for the reason for that digression:
- In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. Now, the earth was formless and void . . .
The word here for "formless and void" is tohu. This is important . . . God created the earth--now it was tohu. Flip over to Isaiah 45:18. There, Isaiah states:
- He is the God who formed the earth and made it, He established it and did not create it a waste place(NASB)
So, we have this statement: God created the world. He did not create it tohu. Now, the world was tohu.
See why I said "had become" doesn't matter? God did not create the earth in one state, but, later, it is in that state. "Was" or "had become" will convey the same message. Neither support or reject the position!
Before I briefly mention Satan's role in this, I want to ask if anyone is aware of any examples where a word's semantic range actually includes it's antonym. Paul and James could use "justified" differently . . . that's quite different from saying that Moses and Isaiah used tohu differently! Rich, and others who reject GT, argue that with Isaiah it is a matter of intention. God did not intend to create the world tohu . . . He intended to create it to be inhabited, as the verse goes on to say. But, the fact is, Isaiah flat states, "He did not create the world [/i]tohu[/i]." Yes, He intended to fill it, which is why He didn't create it that way. That's the common sense, grammatical reading of the text.
So, if the world was originally NOT tohu, what was it? If it wasn't "formless and void" or "a waste place," what was it? I think proponents of GT go to far in asserting that it was populated by a pre-adamic race and then Satan fell and destroyed everything. That's silly, in my humble opinion. Some have argued, more plausibly, that Satan was given rule over this universe, which certainly seems to be the case. He is called a number of things, and many of his titles state very clearly that he is in charge of this world (under, of course, the overarching will of God). If nothing else, consider the Temptation of Christ. How could Satan have given to Jesus what was not his? Now, when was he given the world? It certainly would not have been in his fallen state, and to suggest that Satan "took" it seems to imply a weakness in God. No, Satan had to have been given it . . . so, some argue that at Satan's fall, it was God, NOT SATAN, that struck the universe, and that made it tohu. This was an act of judgement. Satan wanted to be like the Most High . . . he wanted to have the world he had been given to rule for himself. Fine. God let him have his way, as He so often does, but with the consequence that Satan would now be ruling a ruined world!
Some of that gets theoretical, obviously, but it answers a few questions about Satan in general that seems to fit his overall character. I don't think this particular interpretation stands too much against a literal interpretation of Genesis 1. The burning question, if we consider this scenario plausible, is, "What was the state of the world prior to God's inflicting it due to Satan's fall?"
As an aside, I'll say my biggest theological problem is in God's accouncement that the "recreated world" (or refashioned, both labels under this view) was "good." If we already have a fallen Satan, does this not contradict God's own view point? Or does His statement only refer to His work, which, of course, was good, and not to the whole of creation? And, if it is contradictory, what do we do with Isaiah 45:18, and what exactly was Satan's role prior to his fall. When and how did he get dominion over the earth?
Some food for thought . . . comments?
). I personally think GTs have read far too much into the text with the role they assign Satan, but there seems to be a romantic aspect to Satan's involvement that seems appealing.
Many apologies. 
