Translation Methodology

I would like to address a false conception many people have about how successful translation is achieved, especially the widespread misconception about the achievability of a literal "word for word" translation from the ancient Greek texts of the Bible.  Of course a "word for word" translation is not only possible, but it's required, or else the multitude of extraneous words starts creating privately interpreted paraphrases, instead of simply quoting what the ancient writers wrote.

I take the idiom "word for word" as a saying which does not in reality always literally or exactly mean one Greek word translated into one English word and in the syntactic sequence of the Greek words in the text.  But I take it to refer to the goal of adequate and explicit translation, which goal is to strictly limit the number and meaning of English words used for any given Greek word's translation to be confined within the parameters of that Greek word's root meaning, and within the parameters of its defining inherent morphological structure.  First and foremost a Greek word's root meaning, and then its exact morphological structure, must both be preserved in the translation process, adding nothing, changing nothing, and deleting nothing.  The exception to this is allowed for figures of speech, idioms, colloquialisms, etc..

The general rules of thumb I follow to make an English translation as comprehensive in meaning as possible, but yet as concise as possible, is as follows:

1. The inherent root meaning of an English word must be spot-on in agreement with the inherent meaning of the Greek word.

2. The exact morphology of the Greek word must be preserved in a translation, which means preserving a verb's type, mood, tense, voice, case, gender, person, and number into English, and likewise for nouns, their case, gender, person, and number, and likewise for all other parts of speech.

3. The iconography of closely related words and their morphologies must be preserved in a translation.  In all languages words are used as icons of more or less specific meanings.  For example, if an ancient writer wrote the verb dikaiōsai, meaning to make righteous (active voice), or dikaiōthēnai, meaning to be made righteous (passive voice), many may consider the English word justify to be a suitable synonym to use in a Bible translation.  But this does not follow the pattern of word iconography used by the ancient writers of the Biblical texts to produce confluences of truth in readers' minds.  In common English today the meaning of the verb justify means to show or to prove something to be right or reasonable.  But this was not the meaning of those two Greek words, or of their root word dikaioō, two thousand years ago. 

The root word lexical form of dikaiōsai and dikaiōthēnai, and about twenty other closely related morphologies, is dikaioō, which is simply the verb form of the noun dikaiosunē, which simply means righteousness.  The verb dikaioō, in about twenty two morphologies, in about forty usages, simply refers to the act of God making someone righteous.  It's a verb which describes the action of someone being made righteous, according to God's standard of righteousness.  Under the new covenant in Jesus' shed blood, the only way anyone can be made righteous by God is to believe upon the name of his son Jesus Christ, to the end of receiving a new birth above in God's gift of his holy Spirit (Acts 2).  The reception of the new birth from above is the seal of approval by God of that individual having been made righteous by God on account of Jesus' shed blood and his death.

If the general meaning of the lexical form of:

- the verb adikeō (Strong's # 91) means to do unrighteousness, and

- the common noun adikēma (Strong's # 92) means unrighteous things, and

- the common noun adikia (Strong's # 93) means unrighteousness, and

- the adjective adikos (Strong's # 94) means an unrighteous one, and

- the adverb adikōs (Strong's # 95) means unrighteously, and

- the common noun dikaiokrisia (Strong's # 1341) means of righteous judgment, and

- the adjective dikaios (Strong's # 1342) means righteous, and

- the common noun dikaiosunē (Strong's # 1343) means righteousness, and

- the verb dikaioō (Strong's # 1344), meaning to make righteous, or to be made righteous, and

- the common noun dikaiōma (Strong's # 1345) means righteous purpose, and

- the adverb dikaiōs (Strong's # 1346) means righteously, and

- the common noun dikaiōsin (Strong's # 1347) means a pronouncement of righteousness,

then it's obvious that the common root icon/word is the word righteous for all of these parts of speech.  And it is this key icon/word which leads a reader's mind into the thought and recollection of God's only standard of righteousness which is acceptable to him, which is our belief in the name of his son Christ Jesus.  This is an example of the scriptural writers' deliberate repetitive usage of a word in various grammatical forms to construct and plant a confluence of closely related subject matters into the reader's mind.  Once it has been planted it can be recalled with the help of God's gift of his Spirit at work in a believer's mind.  Once a subject matter has been recalled it can be appended with additional closely related subject matter from reading and noting the exact words the ancient writers used with godly precision to lead readers' minds into various confluences of that subject matter. 

Our memories of the comprehensive knowledge of God's Word by subject matter are like backdrops of a set ready to fall into place when triggered by any key icon/word.   Because of the appearance of the key icon/word righteous, in some form or another in all of its scriptural passages of usage, in all of those passages it leads our minds into the backdrop of the remembrance of Jesus' broken body, shed blood, and death for our righteousness and wholeness/salvation.  It leads our minds back to thinking about the beginning of God's new covenant with mortalkind here on earth, and with us personally, and of all of those new covenant great and precious promises of his grace to us who believe upon Jesus' name.  Two Greek words for this confluence of thoughts, on any subject matter coming together in our minds, i.e., the mental connecting of "dots", is the verb suniēmi (Strong's # 4920) meaning putting [it] together, and the noun sunesis (Strong's # 4907), which means intelligience, i.e., that which has been put together.

And so as you can see, using the KJV English icon/word "justify" does not follow the deliberately designed method of word iconography of the ancient Biblical writers, which iconography is the reason why the verb dikaioō (Strong's # 1344), given its associated inflected forms, should be translated as to make righteous, or to be made righteous, etc..  The inflected forms of dikaioō translated as "justify" in English obviously do not fit with the other examples of translation of the other closely related Greek words I presented above, given their parts of speech, which words the ancient writers carefully chose to make the subject matter of righteousness explicit in those contexts.  My translations of the inflected forms of dikaioō in English to explicitly express their literal meanings, such as to make righteous, or to be made righteous, etc., preserve into English both the visual word iconography and confluence of meaning passed down to us by the ancient writers of the holy scriptures.  Preserving the ancient writers' word iconography and making the inflected forms of dikaioō explicit in translation causes their meanings to become identifiable, and that their contextual subject matters are related specifically to God's subject matter of righteousness.  

This preservation of the ancient writers' word iconography allows the reader to determine also that a word's meaning and its contextual meaning are a vital part of, and thereby belong together with, the meanings and contextual meanings of the other closely related words given above, which identification facilitates the connecting of the "dots", the confluence/sunesis in the mind of the reader of the one and the same whole subject matter of God's righteousness.  The ancient writers' use of word iconography is how they rounded up and brought together before a reader's eyes all of the vital passages of holy scripture related to one and the same foundational subject matter, so a reader could identify, find, and bring together in his mind all of the parts of the whole truth of any given subject matter, through simply reading God's Word!

The ancient writers all held to this method of using closely related words as icons to point back to a common and vital fundamental truth.  Modern Biblical translation technology apparently has no clue of, or respect for, this method used by the ancient writers of the holy scriptures which they used to convey to us the mind of God as he revealed it to his prophets, his son Christ Jesus, and as Christ Jesus revealed it to his apostles.  But of the twelve examples of Greek icons/words given above, which are all closely related to the subject of God's righteousness, any and all of them are translated helter-skelter throughout the various English translations, so that the reader of any given translation can absolutely not connect the dots between those related scriptural passages of all of their usages! 

4. The level of specificity of a word must be preserved.  For example, if an ancient writer wrote "Oldsmobile", the English word "car", a word which many may consider as being an adequate "synonym", would be much too general in its level of specificity.  Therefore "car" would not be a good synonym because it does not preserve the level of specificity of the word "Oldsmobile", a specific product line of a specific automobile manufacturer General Motors, whereas "car" could refer to any product line of any automobile manufacturer.  And in addition, "Oldsmobile" is a proper noun, "car" is a common noun.  Why not let the translation simply say "Oldsmobile"?  Of course the ancient writers of the new testament of the Bible didn't write about automobiles, but I think you get my point about a translators choice of selection of English adjectives and nouns with which to reproduce in English, with exact specificity, any Greek adjectives and nouns.

All English translations known to me I consider as having HUGE problems in even coming close to adequately following these four rules.  To me, to do anything else but follow these rules, exactly, would be dishonesty, and by necessity that would mean that the translator is willfully injecting his own, her own, somebody's own, omniscient private interpretations into the translation.

Definition of Unnecessary Paraphrasing

Using the LIT, which I translate following at least the four rules above, I randomly selected Rom. 1:1-5 to use to roughly infer ratios of Greek words to English words necessary, by part of speech, to adequately and explicitly translate those Greek word's meanings into English, which ratios will give us a good ball park idea about how achievable, in reality, is a "word for word" translation, without unnecessary paraphrasing. 

In Koiné Greek the meanings of individual words, especially of verbs, are often more comprehensive than the way their meanings are expressed in English.  In order of conciseness, Greek verbs, on account of their complex morphological structures, are much more concise than English verbs, by a ratio of about 1:4.4, meaning that on average any given Greek verb requires approximately four English words to adequately and explicitly express its meaning in English. Greek nouns are more concise in their meanings than English nouns by a ratio of about 1:1.8, and Greek language's use of indefinite and definite articles with nouns, pronouns and adjectives is more concise by a ratio of about 1:1.7.  The Greek has no indefinite article, but they are required in English.

The number of English conjunctions needed to adequately and explicitly express the meaning of a Greek single word conjunction is a ratio of about 1:1. For adjectives it's a ratio of about 1:1.2, and for prepositions it's a ratio of about 1:1.3

Nouns

That Greek single word nouns on average require about two (1:1.8) English words to adequately and explicitly express their meanings is primarily for three reasons:

1. Many single word nouns in Greek often require the addition of a definite or indefinite article in English to explicitly represent its meaning.  In these instances two English words, the article and the noun itself, are needed to replace one Greek word.

2. Greek cases often require the addition of another word in English to express the Greek case explicitly.

For example:

The accusative and genitive Greek cases often require the addition of the word "of" in English.  The one Greek word autou must often be translated as two words, "of him", in English.

The dative Greek case often requires the addition of the words "to" or "for" in English.  The one Greek word autois must often be translated as two words, "to them" or "for them", in English.

3. The Greek writers of the holy scriptures wrote with great brevity and conciseness.  Jesus spoke with brevity and conciseness mostly because his sentence structures were simple, and he used many short sentences.  Jesus' most preferred communication style was to enunciate most all of the things he said, both publicly, and privately to his disciples.  Apostle Paul spoke with great brevity and conciseness also, but for different reasons.  Apostle Paul wrote using many words with complex compound structures, in order to say the most with as few words as possible, and he used the figure of speech Ellipsis more than any other new testament writer.  This is why apostle Paul's letters are the most difficult to translate of all of the new covenant writings.  If his many various complex compound words don't slow a translator down, then figuring out which previously used noun, pronoun, verb, or preposition to use to fill in an apparent ellipsis, surely will. 

The skillful use of brevity and conciseness, no matter how it was done, was a sign of an educated communicator, and those who were talented at it were customarily held in high regard and respect. Of course Paul's use of brevity and conciseness, pardon me if I seem too critical for a moment, put the burden upon the listener to listen much more closely for the depth and nuances of meaning in his chosen grammatical structures.

One of the most popular methods in Koiné Greek at that time, to keep communications as brief and concise as possible, was the use of the figure of speech Ellipsis. The use of Ellipsis is achieved through the omission of a word or words, nouns, pronouns, verbs and participles, which are to be supplied from the 1) nature of the subject, or 2) from a cognate word in the context, or 3) from a preceding or succeeding clause in the immediate context of the subject.  Ellipsis is widely used in English today, and the ones who are using it virtually have no idea that they are using that ancient figure of speech.

These are the three greatest reasons for why nouns and pronouns in the Greek holy scriptures often require the use of two words in English to explicitly express their meanings.  This ration of 1:1.8 as close as possible that an average Greek noun can be translated by an English noun "word for word".

Verbs

Verbs, on account of their eight morphological components, and therefore the increased number of their unique combinations, are more difficult to translate into English.  Like a noun, a verb's inherent root meaning must be made explicit in English, in consideration of the unique morphological components of its spelling.  Here's an excerpt from my personal lexicon, using a verb for an example, which shows why the number of English words necessary to accurately reproduce a Greek verb into English is based upon its morphological structure:

Using the number of necessary English words to reproduce into English a Greek words' inflected morphological components is obviously not paraphrasing.  Ignoring a verb's root meaning, and/or ignoring a verbs morphological inflections in translation, would be paraphrasing, and therefore fudging as well.  From the rules I've given above you can begin to see what I consider to be paraphrasing, or shall I say fudging. 

Virtually all English translations pay very little, if any attention at all, to the morphological components of Greek verbs, opting to ignore them to produce paraphrases instead, which lack of attention includes ignoring morphological components of nouns as well.  The best way I can think of to describe the popular but woefully inadequate translation methodology that is still in use is that it is a sort of sense-for-sense translation.  The translator or translation committee decides for themselves what is the sense of the meaning they believe the writer is trying to convey, (of course that sense will be related in some way or another to the ever growing and expanding triune godhead theory), and then they rephrase that to the reader in English, instead of simply quoting the ancient writer.  They hop, skip and jump over the morphological components of words, somewhat like an Easter bunny (Mesopotamian fertility goddess Ishtar), a bunny who lays eggs by the way! 

Both bunnies and eggs were regarded by some religions, past and present, as fertility foods, which they ate in combination with praying to the fertility goddess Ishtar, for things like impotence, inability to conceive, and other things.  The fact that most all English translations are theologically fudged paraphrases should be no more shocking than the fact that Christianity pushes the ancient Goddess of fertility, Ishtar, once a year!  They lead you and your children into it, every year!

The huge problem with this sense-for-sense translation methodology is the sense part of it.  What a translator's or translation committee's sense is, is no more than their own opinion, or private interpretation, of what they think the writer may mean, or what they want the writer to mean.  But since those translators and translation committees already have bought into the three-headed god concept of other religions, now they see that concept in some form or another in every scriptural passage they look at, and subsequently create their paraphrases to accommodate it, and thereby that 4th century theological invention becomes translated into their Bibles, through paraphrases to say the least, as we'll see in this next example, a blatant example of fudging English translations to fudge-in support for the three-headed god model, especially the co-equality among "persons" part.

An Example Of English Translation Forgery

Here's what the KJV says:

Phil. 2:5 (KJV) Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
 

Phil. 2:6 (KJV) Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
 

Here's what apostle Paul actually wrote, based upon the widely accepted UBS4 Greek text:

Phil. 2:5 (LIT/UBS4) Think (phroneite) of this (touto) in (en) you (humin), which (ho) [thought of humility, v3, RE] [was] in (en) Christ (Christō) Jesus (Iēsou) also (kai);

Phil. 2:6 (LIT/UBS4) who (hos), being one under control (huparchōn) in (en) [a] form (morphē) of [a] god (theou), he absolutely did not lead himself (ouch hēgēsato) of the (to) [thinking, v2, RE] to equally be (einai isa) [a] god (theō), something stolen (harpagmon)!

Do you see anything different in meaning between what the KJV and the LIT translations say?

The difference in meaning between what these two translations say couldn't be any greater, since one translation says something completely opposite to the other.  Which translation is correct?  Is either translation correct compared to exactly what the ancient writer, apostle Paul, wrote?

In this example the KJV is a very good example of a very bad translation.  Let's walk through these two verses word by word, following the words in the UBS4 Greek text, to see each word's inherent meaning, and then how that meaning is affected by the word's morphological components.  I'm not going to dissect each and every word of these verses, but show you the most important words in which the supposedly trained and vetted translators of the KJV, or the translation committee, ignored the Greek text and its writer, to fudge-in an adopted theological theory, what they "sensed" it to mean! 

The Greek texts read left to right as English does.  However, syntax is totally different.  But Greek syntax is usually obvious, since as in English, adverbs modify verbs, and adjectives modify nouns and pronouns, and the subject (nominative case) performs the action of the verb, and its obvious if a verb is transitive or intransitive from the presence of a direct object in the accusative, and the context, and so on.  And so it's usually not difficult for a translator to reconstruct Greek syntax into the proper word order in English to make a good translation.

Often but not always, when reading the Greek texts, the second word in word order from where there is an apparent beginning of a sentence is the word we would use in English to start that sentence in English syntax.  This is an apparent method used by the ancient writers to indicate sentence beginnings without actually using punctuation, a period to end the last sentence, and capitalization of a word's first letter to show the beginning of the next sentence.

touto - In Phil. 2:5 in the Greek text the first word is touto, a demonstrative pronominal adjective in the accusative case, meaning this, or of this.  It's in the accusative case which tells me a verb must come before it in English syntax.  So where's the verb?  In the Greek text it's the very next word, phroneite.

phroneite - It's a verb in the imperative mood (a command), present tense, active voice, 2nd person, plural.  The KJV translators translated this verb as a noun, mind.  It's not a noun, it's a verb!  And in addition to this mistake, the Greek word for mind is nous, an entirely different word not used here by apostle Paul.  Paul used the verb phroneite which means think.  The noun form of this verb is phronēma, which means thought.  Apostle Paul is not talking about having a mind, he's talking specifically about us thinking, that we think, and what we think.  Controlling our thinking is a vital part of discipleship to Christ Jesus.  With his first word in verse 5, apostle Paul literally says, and I quote, "Think (phroneite) of this (touto)".  To what his demonstrative "this" refers is to his narrative in the following verses 6-9, which describes thoughts Jesus Christ did and didn't think in his own mind.  Apostle Paul is going to tell us exactly what those thoughts were. 

Think of this... - All through the new covenant books of the Bible all of the writers stress how so important it is for us to control our thoughts to think what God's Word says we should think in any situation in life.  Learning to control out thoughts is the beginning point of our own self-discipline, and especially of discipleship to Christ Jesus.  Controlling our thoughts is absolutely vital in defeating the devil and/or any demon spirits in any spiritual battle they may bring to us.  Unless a disciple can learn to run God's Word through his own mind when confronted in any and every situation in life, then what he says or does in reaction to those situations may not be pleasing in God's sight.  Controlling our thoughts is especially important in determining the outcome of any spiritual battle, in determining who wins, the devil and demon spirits or you! 

Everything we say and do is preceded and determined by what we first think in our minds.  Jesus Christ controlled what he subsequently said and did, to be pleasing in God's sight and to always do the Father's will, according to what he first thought about in his own mind, running his knowledge of God's Word through his mind.  This is why preserving what apostle Paul actually wrote, "Think of this" is so important in this verse in Phil. 2:5.  This passage is about teaching us to think, and especially about what thoughts to think.  Therefore this passage is about discipleship to Christ Jesus, and being an imitator of him in our own spiritual conduct.

Now look at this in the next verse, verse 6.

Phil. 2:6 (KJV) Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
 

The very first thing the KJV translators, or the translation committee, does with this verse is deny the meaning of the word huparchōn, and then totally ignore it in the Greek texts!  Huparchōn is a participle verb, in the present tense, active voice, nominative case, masculine gender, and singular in number.  This is a very important word in this verse, and in all verses in the new testament texts, but virtually all Trinitarian-based Bibles ignore it in their "translations".  Can you guess why?  It's for reasons similar to why it's fudged in Phil. 2:6, to prohibit statements appearing in English Bibles like the one here where apostle Paul states that the Word in the beginning was being under control of another being, the God.  That contradicts the co-equality theological invention.  If anyone desires to read out of the biblical texts instead of reading into them, there is no time whatsoever when the Word, or Christ Jesus, is not under the authority and control of his heavenly Father the God almighty.  There is no time whatsoever when the Word, or Christ Jesus, is omniscient or omnipotent.

Huparchōn is a two-part compound word constructed from the verb archomai, meaning to begin, or to begin to be, with the preposition hupo, meaning under,  prefixed to it.  The raw meaning of huparchōn, apart from any context, is to begin to be under.  It's a word describing subordination.  Its lexical root verb is huparchō, which is used in the new covenant writings 60 times in about 13 various morphological forms.  The actions portrayed by all of those usages are about people and things being subordinate to other people and things.  Most all of those usages are about people being subordinate to other people, or to the God, as here in Phil. 2:6, or of people being under the control of, and thereby subordinate to, various things, such as illnesses and diseases.  The KJV, which has set the standard for poor translation, which most all other Bible translations more or less have followed, translates forms of huparchō as be 42 times, have 2 times, live once, after once, and not translated twice; which adds up to only 48 instead of 60, another issue.

[a] god - There is no definite or indefinite article in the Greek text (indefinite articles don't exist), and the capitalization of the word "God" is private interpretation as well.  But I chose to use an indefinite article in my translation of theō, "[a] god" for several reasons, (for one, the English language needs them) based upon empirical evidence in the holy scriptures themselves:

1. Hos, the pronominal adjective at the beginning of verse 6 is in the nominative case, meaning it is the subject, a reference back to Christ Jesus in verse 5, and theō is not in the nominative case, but in the dative case.  The difference in case indicates that apostle Paul is absolutely not implying that Christ Jesus is God in another form or "person", but indicates Paul is simply making a comparison between soul-based forms, bodies of flesh and bone, and spirit-based forms, "bodies" which are common to heavenly beings. 

2. In 1 Cor. 15:35-49 apostle Paul writes about into what kind of bodies the dead in Christ shall be raised, which he says are Spirit-based (pneumatikon) "bodies", specifically, bodies with God's Spirit in them making them alive (Rom. 8:9-11). 

3. In Col. 1:15 apostle Paul writes that what became the God's firstborn son, which started out as the Word in the beginning, was the first of all things which were created (v17).  Apostle Paul writes that the Word was a created being of some kind, because he was the firstborn one, which indicates the Word had a beginning, and that it did not exist before the God gave it a birth.  Col. 1:15 clearly states that the Word in the beginning was the firstborn one, which means it became alive, it came into being through a birth of some kind.  But the texts of the holy scriptures make a clear distinction that the birth of some kind of the Word in the beginning was absolutely not the same kind of birth as is required to become born as a son of God, which sonship is constituted specifically through the process of becoming a genus of God. 

The various references in the texts to becoming born as a son of God, to becoming a genus of God (1 Pet. 2:9), state that the God has to graciously give his gift of his own unique life-giving Spirit, to which apostle Peter refers to as God's spore (1 Pet. 1:23), which process is the only kind of birth through which any created being of God can become a son of God, which is to become a genus of God (Acts 17:28-29).  Although the Word in the beginning had a spirit-based form of some kind, at that time it was not in a state of having or being a genus of God.  What is the special quality of God's genus which no other genus has may be defined, to some extent, by what Jesus said in John 5:26, that it holds life in itself, and is able to give life of itself.  Apostle Paul made a reference to this in Rom. 8:9-11.  In John 3:36 Jesus tells everyone how to become a genus of God.

Jesus Christ, the Word which became flesh and tented among us, didn't receive God's spore, which caused Jesus to become a genus of God, until Jesus received a baptism in God's gift of his Spirit immediately after Jesus was water baptized at the Jordan river by John the Baptist (John 1:32; ), which baptism in God's Spirit caused Jesus to become an only genus (monogenous) of God (John 1:14), until the day of Pentecost.  Beginning on the day of Pentecost, about 30 CE (Acts 2), Christ Jesus, on behalf of his heavenly Father the God, began baptizing all of those who believe upon Jesus' name, in that gift of God's Spirit which he had received, causing each one of all of those to become a genus also of the God, causing them all to become sons also of the God.  This is why Jesus was the firstborn (Rom. 8:29), because there were more sons of God coming after him, according to the prophecies of God's plan for his coming redeemer under his new covenant (Exod. 15:17; 2 Sam. 7:5-16; Isa. 59:20-21, 62:8-12, 66:1-2; Jer. 31:31-34; Ezek. 11:16-20, 36:25-27, 37:5-10, 39:17-20, 29; Joel 2:28-32; Amos 9:11-12; Zech. 6:12-15, 8:3; Acts 7:47-50; Heb. 8:1-2, 8-12; Rev. 21:3).

4. In Heb. 1:1-4 the writer of Hebrews gives us more details about what was this first created being the God produced, that it was a heavenly messenger, an angel as many people transliterate it. 

For at least these four scriptural reasons I believe apostle Paul wrote comparatively in Phil. 2:6 about Christ Jesus, the Word in the beginning, as having a spirit-based body of some kind, a spirit-based form of the kind the heavenly messengers have, which he volunteered to give up for a soul-based body of flesh and bone to become God's promised redeemer to mortalkind.  On account of this great commitment he made to the God, God rewarded him through giving to him his gift of his unique life-giving Spirit, so that the first messenger the God produced became the first genus of the God, who then, through the sacrifice of his own flesh and blood made it available for anyone among all mortalkind, anyone who believes upon Jesus' name, to become a genus also of the God.  This is the beginning of the revealing of the mystery of godliness, which my work about the "domed-roof house" attempts to explain to some extent.

Apostle Paul speaks of the Word in the beginning as being in a form of the God, which I believe simply means that the Word was a spirit-based being of some kind, but I see no scriptural evidence here to indicate that apostle Paul stated or meant that the Word was already a genus of the God, a son of God.  According to all of the scriptural records in the texts of the new testament writings, the Word in the beginning was not yet rewarded with sonship through his own belief of God's Word ( Psalm 16:8-11; Acts 2:22-36, 13:26-37; Eph. 3:12; Col. 2:12).    

Phil. 2:6 (KJV) Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
 

Phil. 2:6 (LIT/UBS4) who (hos), be one under control (huparchōn) in (en) [a] form (morphē) of [a] god (theou), he absolutely did not lead himself (ouch hēgēsato) of the (to) [thinking, v2, RE] to equally be (einai) equally (isa) [a] god (theō), something stolen (harpagmon)!

he absolutely did not lead himself - The KJV translators paraphrase their Bible to say, "thought it not robbery", completely ignoring the verb hēgēsato in the Greek text.  Hēgēsato is a verb in the indicative mood, aorist tense, middle voice, third person, and singular in number.  The root verb's intrinsic/lexical meaning "to lead", along with the consideration which must be given to the verbs morphological components and its modifier ouch, make the raw meaning of ouch hēgēsato very emphatic, to mean he absolutely did not lead himself, a phrase revealing apostle Paul's belief of Jesus' own self-autonomy and free will!

The idea of to lead in this deliberate choice of verb by apostle Paul, is an indicator of the fact that thoughts proceed before, or they lead before words are spoken, or actions are taken.  From Jesus' example, this is the way we are to carry out our own choice of volition, according to the scriptural example here.  Paul's use of this verb indicates that what Jesus said and did was preceded by, or led by, what he thought, by his thoughts.  The specific thoughts Jesus thought in this entire context are the thoughts were are to think to govern our own words and actions.  But the KJV translators totally ignored this verb as though this concept in the holy scriptures is not valuable enough for us to learn.  The ignorance of this verb in the KJV translation removes and obliterates the idea that Jesus was a distinct and autonomous being, thinking on his own and using his own volition to subordinate himself to his producer, his creator, the God.  This verb is obliterated in the KJV translation because it suggests and describes a concept about how Christ Jesus thought, spoke, and acted which disagrees with the triune godhead theology.

In this important passage apostle Paul writes that Christ Jesus chose not to think a certain thought, but chose to think other thoughts.  So what was the thought Christ Jesus chose not to think, which thought would have led him

into making the same mistake the devil made (2 Thes. 2:1-4)?  Apostle Paul uses the emphatic particle of negation, ouch, to emphatically state that Christ Jesus absolutely did not, no way, no how, lead himself into thinking something, that something being equality with the one true highest God, his heavenly Father.  The mortal-made worldly wisdom of the triune godhead theory claims Jesus was co-equal.  Apostle Paul states that Jesus never thought that for an instant, and if he did it would a thought about stealing with the God!  I can't find any verses in the holy scriptures where Jesus ever claimed to be equal with his heavenly Father, but many in which Jesus sates just the opposite (Mat. 9:8; Mark 6:5; Luke 5:17, 7:16; John 3:2, 5:19-20, 8:16, *29, 9:33, *10:38, *14:10-11, *16-20, 28, 16:32b; *Acts 2:22, 10:38; *2 Cor. 5:18-19; Eph. 3:16-19, 4:6; *Col. 1:19-20, 2:9; 1 John 5:20).

something stolen - Harpagmon means something stolen, ripped-off, heisted, pilfered, absconded, shoplifted.  "Snatched" is its intrinsic and literal meaning, which meaning doesn't need to be fixed or replaced with any other synonyms.  So what was the thought that Christ Jesus absolutely did not think, which thought could have led him into saying or doing something which would not have been pleasing in God's sight?  At the time Christ Jesus was the Word that the God produced, created, the first thing he created out of all of his creation, a heavenly messenger in a form, a body, of a spirit-based being, in a form/body which soul-based beings consider to be a form of a god, the Word absolutely did not think about stealing from the God his unique singularly significant position as the one, true, highest God (Luke 1:32).  The Word, and when it became Christ Jesus, he absolutely did not think about being equal to a god, even though at that time in the beginning he had a spirit-based form, a body like a god.  The Word who became Christ Jesus was not led by the thought to be equal to a god.

As we can see through actually looking at the Greek text, what the KJV says in Phil. 2:5-6 is the complete opposite to what apostle Paul actually wrote!  Why?  Because those who believe the invented triune godhead theory can't keep their hands off from what the ancient writers actually wrote because it disagrees with their own omniscient private interpretation, and contradicts the triune godhead theory invented about 1,700 years ago.  The KJV translators, and/or translation committee, has the audacity to fudge the holy scriptures to force them to agree with an invented mortal-made theory, and then to pass their paraphrases and creative "synonyming" in their Bibles as though its what the ancient writers thought, spoke and wrote!  How dishonest is that?

The Trinitarian KJV Bible says, "...thought it not robbery to be equal with God", the complete opposite of what apostle Paul wrote.  Christ Jesus absolutely did not think of himself as being equal to a god, let alone equal to his producer, his creator, the one, true, highest God, his heavenly Father!  But think for a minute, isn't that the huge mistake the devil made, his desire to usurp the God's position as the one, true, highest God?

2 Thess. 2:3 (LIT/UBS4) May not (mē) anyone (tis) fake you out (exapatēsē humas), down (kata) not one (mēdena) way (tropon);

because (hoti) [the day of the Lord shall not stand] if perhaps (ean) first (prōton) the (hē) departure (apostasia) may not come (mē elthē), and (kai) the (ho) mortal (anthrōpos) of the (tēs) lawlessness (anomias) may be revealed (apokaluphthē), the (ho) son (huios) of the (tēs) lost one (apōleias);

2 Thess. 2:4 (LIT/UBS4) the one (ho) causing himself to lie opposed (antikeimenos), and (kai) exalting himself (huperairomenos) over (epi) all (panta) being said (legomenon) [to be] of God (theon), or (ē) [a] thing reverenced (sebasma);

and so (hōste) [for] him (auton) to sit down (kathisai) into (eis) the (ton) holy place (naon) of the (tou) God (theou), appointing (apodeiknunta) himself (heauton), that (hoti) [he] is (estin) [a] god (theos)!

Why not start seeing the substantial differences between liberal theological English "translations" and exactly what the ancient writers of the new covenant books of the Bible actually wrote?  And why not start seeing some of the startling differences by comparing John 1:1-3, Phil. 2:6, Col. 1:1-20 and Heb. 1:1-14 in the LIT to any other English translation?

I'm not saying that the meaning of each and every word in those Bibles is fudged in its English rendering, but I'm saying that about 40-50% of them are!  That's HUGE!  And there is absolutely no need for it, except to pay homage to sacred cow mortal-made theological theories invented at sometime or another.  We were warned about this, the corruption of the communication of God's Word, and that the corruption of the communication of it would remain, by and large, the status quo in the world into the future, as it was in the days of Jesus' earthly ministry (See Mat. 15:9; Rom. 1:21-22; 2 Cor. 10:5-6; 11:13-15; Eph. 5:6-12; Col. 2:8; 2 Tim. 3:13; Tit. 1:10-14).

I believe all of this theological fudging in English translations has produced an entirely different kind of "Christianity" than Jesus and his apostles preached and taught in the first century Ministry of Reconciliation (2 Cor. 5:18-19).  To find out what the ancient writers actually wrote, to find out what is the real Christianity Jesus and his apostles preached and taught two millenniums ago is why I started the LIT.  Going back to the Greek texts was the only way I could begin to discover exactly what did the ancient writers of the Bible exactly say, write, and mean. 

I invite you, and anyone, to compare the LIT to your favorite "translation(s)".  If you do, and when you may see differences in wording and/or meanings between the two, then compare those verses to the UBS4/NA27 Greek texts using study tools like the ones I recommend at this website, ones which virtually all Christian religious institutions use to some extent, and see for yourself which translation is true to the texts of the ancient writers, through quoting them.  Do this and see for yourself how much the triune godhead theory has been paraphrased and creatively "synonymed" into virtually all Bible translations except the LIT.