Isn’t the Shekinah (a word not found in the Bible) an appearance of God the Jews believed was manifested to them?

So if there are OT passages which describe the glory of God and if there is the tradition of the Transfiguration and if there is the belief Jesus asked to have the glory He had before the world existed, then how are the Philippians supposed to ignore all of that in order to understand μορφῇ Θεοῦ as the form of “a” god?

Especially when the passage ends with "to the glory of Father God?"

What I see in the approach you take, which is certainly "ok" from a scholarly perspective of Greek grammar when translated into English, is turning a blind eye to how a Gentile reader of the period would understand what Paul wrote. In fact, if "a god" was even remotely possible, there is no reason for Paul to compose the passage. As it is, the obvious meaning is to refer to the glory Jesus had with the Father before coming in human form.

@Biblasia Did you watch the video which was the basis for this question? Because "a god" is supposedly a reference to a common pagan belief of a person who is vindicated being rewarded by the gods. The author states μορφῇ θεοῦ is not referring to what Paul believes; rather Paul is making a reference to these pagan stories of people who did something exemplary and obtaining a reward. I find this claim to be absurd.

The idea Paul was a monotheist and believed in the OT but was unable to find an example to make his point is without support. To the contrary, Paul repeatedly used OT examples to illustrate his message. Are you in agreement with the theory Paul is using μορφῇ θεοῦ to point Gentile believers back to their prior polytheistic beliefs?