Well - I think we will just have to agree to differ and leave it at that. But my disagreement is no criticism of your spiritual state. Please do not be offended!
I fail to see how your logic proves me to be on the RC side, "You are taking Rome’s side against the claims of the Reformers" (sic).
I fail to see how the TR has now become identical with the autographs (assuming that John did not write in Latin!)
I fail to see that a Latin 'Vorlage' has (since Erasmus' time) now been elevated to the level of 'inspired Scripture'. The Westminster Confession points to the original languages, Hebrew and Greek. The Hebrew vowel points, at any rate, were added much later, and are thus not part of the original (sometimes a different English rendering is possible).
To argue that Protestantism combats the papacy on the basis of a 16th century text (I reiterate my contention about textual variants, most of which are insignificant) seems absurd to me, allowing Romanism to attack a novel tradition!
Having studied the Scriptures in the original, I fail to see how 'AV only supporters' can purport to reflect Hebrew or Greek idioms. Neither, I suppose, would you would agree with Luther's translation approach whom you cite as relying on the Received Text. He departed from it in his German translation – though, granted, not necessarily for textual reasons.
In Scotland I know of men who would argue that the Gaelic is clearer than the Hebrew. Oddly enough, I have read a book on the linguist relation between Hebrew and Gaelic! A linguistic case can be made for Adam and Eve speaking in Gaelic!
Anyway, I trust you are knowing the LORD'S blessing on your labour!

In Him,

Dieter

__________________
Independent Reformed Baptist Church (NE England, nr. Durham)