I would choose that path of “Word to word translation as it is written” even if no translators take it ‘as it is written’ —> especially when they ‘begin to Interpret what they think it means’ (hermeneutics).
In fact, I don’t think apostle Paul would have been thinking in “Grammar forms” mentioned by them (as often claimed by ‘hermeneutic & linguistic’ experts) but just the ‘meaning’ of each “word as it is written”.
How about the “Grammar forms” or “language functions”?
The other aspects add richness to the meaning and additional flavour of depth but it “cannot” change the “meaning” of any word found in the original text.
That is, these additional aspects enrich in the direction of the existing words which give the Base “unchangeable” meaning defined by the “words” which “exist” in the original text