1. For years I have been wrestling with this idea: "The literal translations of the text is." But it seems not to make much sense. Here's why: a. Grammarians have come up with all these categories of function, which are built on the forms: i. For example, Dan B. Wallace has 15 different functions of the Genitive, which he calls the Adjectival use of the Genitive. Then he has another 8 different functions of the Genitive under the Adverbial Genitive. ii. And according to Dana-Mantey, the preposition en just doesn't mean "in," it can also mean "besides," "with," "because of," "into," "by," etc. 2. So when we come to a passage like James 2:4: a. "Have you not made distinctions among yourselves and become judges with evil motives?" (NASB). b. "Are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts?" (KJV). 3. "Of evil thoughts" or "with evil motives" are the translation of two genitives: "of thoughts of evil." 4. "Of thoughts of evil" we would say is the literal translation, but was that "literal translation" concept in the minds of the writer? 5. Would it then be best to translate it the two genitives "with evil motives/thoughts" and label the first genitive a Hebrew Genitive/Genitive of Quality rather than speak of "literal translation." 6. What really do we mean by "literal translation?"