As for the original language, verses 1 and 2 form one independent clause... the Hebrew tohu bohu, "unformed" and "unfilled" are not necessarily terms of judgment... hayeta is translated properly as "was" (can't be "became" as Gap Theorists would like to make it).
Number one, the original word is hayah not hayetha. However, I did remember a bit about the disjunctive-waw clause which gets deep into the Hebrew. However, please note:
A disjunctive-waw clause may also shift the scene or refer to new participants; the disjunction may come at the beginning or end of a larger episode or it may "interrupt" one. The "interruptive" use, better called explanatory or parenthetical, "break into the main narrative to supply information relevant to or necessary for the narrative" The disjunction may also indicate "either the completion of one episode or the beginning of another. [ see Lambdin p.164, citing Gn. 3:1; 4:1; 16:1; 21:1 ] "
Which, I feel at least, makes it somewhat of a moot point. So, we'll move on to bigger and better things.Correct me if I am wrong here, but would the word was not really matter in this statement given the Hebrew meanings of tohuw and bohu. Look at the other place that it is used in Jeremiah and Isaiah again where the words specifically means it became.The argument on the site is lacking - for example, if you want to use the logic of why didn't God say anything about it then what about Jesus in the Bible of whom we know basically nothing of his young life? Why? Because it's not in God's purpose to reveal it.
2. Satan, or Lucifer before he fell, was ruler of the earth, which was at that time inhabited by a pre-Adamic race of people, (Robert Alexander, How to Study the Bible p.35)
Strange, I don't remember the Bible nor myself advocating this. Number one, these weren't the people of creation. Notice that in Genesis 2:7 God "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and a man became a living soul." The specific word used here is neshamah which alludes to soul. Notice the specific physical creation but the lack of the creation of the soul. He breathed life into the physical body. In other words, he placed the soul, which existed prior to this second age creation, into the physical body of Adam.It doesn't change the nature of men, and that's another argument I saw Fred make. The ones who rebelled with Satan did so of their own accord, the same way we now rebel from God.Another point I'd like to make, is it doesn't harmonize the views of evolutionists and the creationists. It suggests some things that would certainly explain other things, but that's not my aim. However, it also still disagrees overall with evolution as an origin and if it is/was an attempt, it was indeed a very poor one. Also, I'm not worried about fossils of long dead beasts in the ground. I'm worried about what the Good Book says.
...and much more difficult to refute I might add, as it tears down the [url="http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=NIV&passage=2+Peter+3]2 Peter 3[/url] arguments rather handily.
Funny, didn't see a word about about II Peter 3 in there. Why was it left out? He can't explain it!