Did the earth “become” without form and void? Gen 1v2

“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.  And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.”  Gen 1:1-2 KJV

The gap theory translates the word “was” in verse 2 as “had become”.  In doing so the suggestion is the earth was not created without form and void in v1 but became so due to judgment on a previous creation or some other unknown reason.  Is this consistent with the Hebrew?  The word translated “was” has a wide variety of meanings and determining the correct tense is beyond my limited skills.  Hence, as we all do, I have to go to the work of others.

The LXX translators, closer in time to the original Hebrew than us, followed a similar pattern saying “But the earth was unsightly and unfurnished”.

The NET Notes make the following comment on the word

“Some translate 1:2a “and the earth became,” arguing that v. 1 describes the original creation of the earth, while v. 2 refers to a judgment that reduced it to a chaotic condition. Verses Genesis 1: 3ff. then describe the re-creation of the earth. However, the disjunctive clause at the beginning of v. 2 cannot be translated as if it were relating the next event in a sequence. If v. 2 were sequential to v. 1, the author would have used the vav consecutive followed by a prefixed verbal form and the subject.”

Ie the NET translators take the same view as the KJV translators that v2 describes what God created in v1 and “was” is the right translation rather than “had become”.  While the NET notes comment on the gap translation, they give no support for it and highlight how the Hebrew should read if this was correct.

The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament also specifically references this passage and supports the same conclusion in terms of “was” rather than “had become”.

Consequently, the best way of reading Gen 1:2 is as clarifying statements on the work done by God.  There is no explicit or implied ruin of the earth in v2 leading to a rebuilding in v3.  I accept others read it as a heading – but regardless there is no support for a gap – inserting a gap is not being faithful to the text.