Here is Strong's definition for the word in question:
[1961] hayah haw-yaw
a primitive root (compare 1933); to exist, i.e. be or become, come to pass (always emphatic, and not a mere copula or auxiliary):— beacon, X altogether, be(- come), accomplished, committed, like), break, cause, come (to pass), do, faint, fall, + follow, happen, X have, last, pertain, quit (one-)self, require, X use. [see HEBREW for 01933]
The inference of a transition from one state to another is not inherent in the definition. You could translate it that way, depending upon context, but it is not a necessity.
The word was is simply commenting on the the state of existence [of the earth] at a given point in time.
Now, getting back to context....if you interpret the first line of Genesis as itself, an act of creation, then a translation of the word form one state to another certainly would make sense, however, given the whole of Genesis one, such an interpretation (of the first line being an act of creation itself) simply doesn't make sense. There is no indication that "the heaven," or the universe itself, was also recreated, and that is exactly how you would have to interpret it if you concede that the first line is itself an act of creation, separate from the days of creation that follow.
In short, to sustain your argument, you would have God creating the heaven and earth in the first line of Genesis, and then again in the "days" that follow, but without an indication of a transition for the heaven, that there is for the earth, in line two of Genesis. In fact, in the very line that you claim such a transition should be translated for the earth (verse 2) it is clear that the universe was without form or substance itself, i.e., and darkness was upon the face of the deep."
I've said this before (many times) and I'll say it again. I'm not opposed to arguments such as yours in principle. I just find that they have no merit when taking the whole of Genesis into consideration, and they definitely break down upon further inspection.
To me, the context necessitates that definition. "The Hebrew word "was" can be translated "became" and most modern Bibles now footnote it as became." (Diego1618)
There is no indication that "the heaven," or the universe itself, was also recreated, and that is exactly how you would have to interpret it if you concede that the first line is itself an act of creation, separate from the days of creation that follow.
There are a number of reasons why I do believe it speaks of a "recreation". One of those is that it states:
Gen.1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Heaven is given as singular but when you go to 2:1 it is now referred to as the "heavens". There is only one heaven and one earth so this must be two ages of heaven and earth, two beginings.
In short, to sustain your argument, you would have God creating the heaven and earth in the first line of Genesis, and then again in the "days" that follow, but without an indication of a transition for the heaven, that there is for the earth, in line two of Genesis
I'm not certain I understand. There was also a transition in heaven as there was no light on earth, the sun, moon and stars were not presented until day four.
I just find that they have no merit when taking the whole of Genesis into consideration, and they definitely break down upon further inspection.
I believe not only all of Genesis but other Books tell us the more complete story:
2 Peter 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water (6) Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water perished: (7) but the heavens and the earth which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
Peter is speaking about the first age as our present world did not perish in Noah's flood nor did his flood destroy the heaven age of our time.
Another scripture about that first age is Jeremiah 4:
22.For My people is foolish, they have not known Me; they are sottish children and they have none understanding: they are wise to do evil, but to do good they have no knowledge.
23. I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was (became) without form, and void; and the heavens and they had no light.
It became without form and void. God created it to be inhabited but it became void. (Isa.45:18) For thus saith the Lord that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the Lord; and there is none else.
24.I beheld the mountains, and, lo, they trembled, and all the hills moved lightly.
25.I beheld, and lo, there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens were fled
This is not Noah's flood as here there was no man - no Noah and none of his birds.
26.I beheld, and lo, the fruitful place was a wilderness, and all the cities thereof were broken down at the presence of the Lord, and by His fierce anger.
There were cites in that first age.
Genesis 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, "Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.......Not "plenish" but replenish earth.
There are other places that tell of or hint at that first age but one of my favorites is the following:
"This is not scripture, but the 'Book of Jasher' is quoted twice in the Old Testament, Joshua 10:13 & 2 Samuel 1:18. Some credence, therefore....should probably be given to this:" Jasher, speaking of the creation (Jasher was the son of Caleb....a contemporary of Moses), says in 1:4-5, "And the abyss fled before the face of the light, and divided Between the light and the darkness. So that the face of nature was formed a second time." - (Diego1618)