another word on Romans 1

I re-read Romans 1 in the NIV and NAS.
I remember being very interested, many years ago, at the italized words, and that they did not actually appear in the original, but were inserted to make the sentence more grammatcially correct. Actually Ancient Hebrew and Ancient Greek are languages with very specific and unique grammar rules, much different than any of the modern languages, especially English.
A misplaced or misused article, a misunderstood tense, can alter the meaning of a sentence. Jots and Tittles were very important when a scribe did his work.
One serious example of how modern translators can manipulate the meaning of a section of scripture, that has nothing to do with predestination or election is how the word for parent is used. People who, back in the mid-80s, wanted to make God and His Word gender neutral rightly pointed out that the Greek word for father is the same word used for mother. They wrongly concluded that therefore we could legitimately say "Our Mother, instead of Our Father, or at least, Our Divine Parent. The word itself is gender neutral, but the articles used specify the male parent.
What I've discovered in recent studies as well as what I learned when I was at Roberts Wesleyan College, taking as many Bible Courses as I could fit into my schedule...indicates that when it came to choosing what form of the word, what tense, what article in English Translations, when there were many choices, the accepted doctrine affected that choice. You can even see it when you look at some of the words in Strong's concordance. The influence of the Classical Greek belief in Destiny and Fatalism could well have affected Augustine's doctrine. As could his outspoken hatred for Jews could have affectied Luther's.
What I pointed out in my last post was that while Romans 1 is often used as a point for and against the salvation of people who have never heard...I am more interested in considering just what Creation tells us about the nature of God. Today I read the chapter just to see exactly where it says no man ever does good or ever turns to God, or how ever it was put by one of my comments. Here are my observations. Was Paul called an apostle, or called to be an apostle?
Those little italized words can make a difference in what he was saying about himself. But that isn't such an important point. I see that Paul is talking to those who have already have faith, but is planning on coming and preaching the gospel to them. What gospel if they are already saved by faith? I read that the wrath of God is agains all ungodliness, not all men because all men are ungodly. Infact, as I read about those who professed to be wise, became fools, I do not see that that is all men, but rather some "they" and "them" not you all.
They reject and even try to supress the truth. So God turns them over to live the consequences of their ungodly, anit-godly choices.
Paul, in his writings seems to have 2 main themes. Gentiles can be saved without submitting to Jewish customs or rituals - so don't let them try to circumsise you. Just because you are saved by grace, not being under the law does not give you license to do what ever you want. Salvation is a gift, but one that requires the obedience that comes from faith.