Textus Receptus

Appears to be a bunch of straw man arguments.

This is just nonsense. Granted the term was first published on the title page in 1633 but the term "textus receptus" means "the received text." It had been the universally received text for around 1000 years. To imply the "received text" did not exist prior to 1633 is simply dishonest. (By the way, the guy's math skills seem to be on a par with his knowledge of history. 13 years after the date of the KJV? Really. Let's see: 1611 + 13 = 1624. The term "textus receptus" was first published on the title page of the preface to the second edition of a Greek New Testament published by the brothers Elzevir in 1633. He missed it by 9 years! Duh!)

Actually, no. The KJV was not based on any single Greek text. It was a revision of the Bishops' Bible, the previous "Authorized Version." Which, itself, was a revision of the Great Bible, the first "Authorized Version" which was, through a couple intermediaries, a revision of the Tyndale Bible which was (probably) translated from the 1522 edition of Erasmus's Greek text. The KJV translators probably availed themselves of both the 1550/1551 edition of Stephanus and the 1582 edition of Beza.

Well, Duh! Why does he think they are called "revisions!?"