Then the translators would correctly translate that Adam and Eve became naked and the serpen became crafty.
It's a different form of the same word in those passages, isn't it? I think that word is translated interchangeably as "was", "became" or "had/s become", but I'd have to look closer.
Regardless, I get what you're saying.
I think the same holds true for the word in Gen 2:1 being translated both ways depending on context.
And, I think the reason that Rotherham translated it "had become" was to: 1.) fit the ruin-renovation theology; and 2.) because of the next phrase that he translated "waste and wild" which was based on it's usage in Isaiah, in a totally different context, however.
Not sayin' it's correct. And, as I stated, that interpretation is in a minority.
