You should be reading Murray, not a review of Murray, to get the most accurate account.
Worthless snarky comments indicate to me that your realize your position, which definitely attempts to correct the AV, (no doubt any more) is kaput.
The reviews have a solid place, the Murray text has a solid place.
You actually ignored my first comment from Murray, that is extremely important.
Murray Harris p.166
“the natural association of θεὸς with εὐλογητὸς”
As we see in the AV text and is missing in your English corrections.
If you accept this natural association, which you should, your proposed text is totally refuted, as is the Murray Harris one preference text over the AV.
The fact that Murray Harris made the excellent comment, and then ignored it at crunch-time (when he was down to the wire between the pure Bible and an identity corruption), can be seen as his major failure in the article.
Try not to bypass this point again, since it essentially refutes your position.