[Diamond]

Where is hyparchio used to assert pre-existence? The exact verse please. The only one I can think of is Phil. 2:6

Bingo!

...who, being in the form of God...

huparcho, "existing", referring to the continued state of a thing, with morph meaining the essential attributes as shown in the form, i.e., the essence his nature.

Being (uparxwn).

Rather, "existing," present active participle of uparxw. In the form of God (en morphi teou). Morph means the essential attributes as shown in the form. In his preincarnate state Christ possessed the attributes of God and so appeared to those in heaven who saw him. Here is a clear statement by Paul of the deity of Christ.
RWP

Existing in the form of God denotes pre-existence, obviously.

Cordially,

[kosta50]

Bingo!...Existing in the form of God denotes pre-existence, obviously

Not at all. Paul is speaking of the resurrected Christ, not the pre-incarnate Christ. That much is obvious not only from Philippians 2 but from Paul's theology in general.

More importantly, Paul himself dispels any notion that hyparcho, used in this fashion, means pre-existence.

ἀνὴρ μὲν γὰρ οὐκ ὀφείλει κατακαλύπτεσθαι τὴν κεφαλήν εἰκὼν καὶ δόξα θεοῦ ὑπάρχων [present, active participle] γυνὴ δὲ δόξα ἀνδρός ἐστιν [1 Cor 11:7]

KJV translates this as

For a man indeed ought not to cover [his] head, forasmuch as he is [sic] the image and glory of God.

But KJV is not alone in this fraud. The only version of the Bible I could find that translates this correctly is Young's Literal Translation.

for a man, indeed, ought not to cover the head, being the image and glory of God, and a woman is the glory of a man,

Cleverly, or deceitfully, take your pick, the translators of KJV and others versions chose to translate the same tense (active present participle) differently, to avoid the pre-existential conflict between verses such as Philippians 2:6 and 1 Corinthians 11:7.

This is the level and extent of manipulation the biblical text has been subjected to in order to create "concordance." It is obvious that otherwise verses such as 1 Corinthians 11:7 and Philippians 2:6 would have been a doctrinal stumbling block if not a killer.

This also explains why it is no wonder that Gnostics loved Paul so much, especially Valentius and Marcion. He spoke their language because he himself, by the way he wrote, must have harbored substantial Gnostic beliefs.

Of course, none of this would ever be evident to your average bumpkin English Bible reader. The powers to be made sure of that. Ignorance is bliss.

[kosta50]

with morph meaining the essential attributes as shown in the form, i.e., the essence his nature

That's not what morphe means. It means the external appearance, or the "form by which one strikes the vision."

External appearance does not represent the essence or nature. The definition given by your source corresponds not to morphe but to ousia.

Apparently Paul believed that God was visible and had a form. Nothing could be farther from the Jewish or even Christian belief.

Or he was just saying that knowing the Greeks believed it.