A very good example of the person without Latin background understanding the issues better than the one with background. It was quite easy to see that your original translation attempts were simply wrong.
=======================
In that sense it is analogous to finding the blunders of Bill Brown in his attacks on the grammatical argument using verses with masculine and/or feminine nouns. Bill knew the gender of the words, but he got lost in space on what were the fundamental issues. And with his bluster posting and absolute refusal to acknowledge the error he has poisoned the fascinating discussions on the grammar of the heavenly and earthly witnesses.
And not one contra has been willing to tell Bill Brown that he is wrong. That miss is key to understanding skewed and biased argumentation from those opposed to heavenly witnesses authenticity. And that includes you, TNC.
Of course, if you have an answer that you think vindicates Bill's usage of irrelevant verses, you could share. However, the issues are extremely simple, and everyone can see from Eugenius Bulgaris that the verses used were not valid. In fact, that truth of only neuter noun verses being relevant is actually in the Bill Brown thesis paper!
And all that is why I made this thread, that has all the basics in the first four posts.
CARM
the grammar of the heavenly and earthly witnesses
https://forums.carm.org/threads/the-grammar-of-the-heavenly-and-earthly-witnesses.9748/
=======================
And I did have to point out the Cassiodorus translation issue about five times. And I am glad that you finally saw and fixed the error. Thanks!
Although the text you give, with many different actual attempts, like the Amplified Version, is awkward and unnecessary. Look at the simplicity of the five translations I placed on an earlier post.
=======================