If you are interested, I've done a little bit of
research about that article you sent.  I spread out
my three Bibles:  King James Version (KJV), New
International Version (NIV), and New American
Standard Bible (NASB).  I like to have different
versions to compare because there are many ways to
translate the same sentence from modern languages, 
not to mention ancient languages!  There's a really
neat website that you should check out:

http://bible.gospelcom.net/

It has 10 translations of the Bible in English (and
lots more in other languages).  When you look up a
verse or search on a phrase, you can tell it which
versions you'd like to use.  Once you have displayed
a verse, you can easily switch to another version by
clicking on the appropriate abbreviation at the top
of the page.  This can be a little tedious if you are
comparing many verses, however, so they made a 
special search that puts multiple translations on the 
same page.

This lets you put in the passage (book, chapter, and
verse) and which of the 10 versions you'd like to
compare (including three KJV versions!).  I've found
this site particularly helpful because those parallel
Bibles are so cumbersome.

Now I'm no Bible scholar, and I've never claimed to
be one, but most of the comments in that article you
sent can be broken into the following categories:

1.  Verses relegated to the footnotes.
2.  Alternate translations with the same meaning.
3.  Rhetoric.

Now, I've taken the time to look up those references
and I'd like to discuss them individually with you,
but first I'd like to comment on the categories above.

1.  Verses relegated to the footnotes.

I have to agree, I found this quite disturbing when I
first discovered some of these passages a long time ago.  
Your article does me the benefit of listing all of the 
places where this happens.  I personally would prefer 
that the verses be included in the text stream and that 
the notations about their uncertainty be in the 
footnotes.  So, you have a point there.

But let me ask you this:

If we have several different ancient manuscripts of a 
particular passage and they disagree, what criteria 
should we use to compare them?  Some manuscripts have 
been discovered recently (last couple hundred years) 
that can be dated to the first century church.  Now, 
when these older versions are consistently different 
from some later manuscripts, we have to wonder about 
the change.  God's Word is perfect and immutable but 
the human caretakers are liable to err from time to 
time.  This is why I feel it is very important to view 
multiple translations so that you can see how several 
different scholars interpreted the verses.  But the 
most important step is to ask the Holy Spirit for the 
guidance that Christ promised.

2.  Alternate translations with the same meaning.

Many of the verses mentioned have translations that
say the same thing or which, in context, have the
same meaining.  I will give specific examples in the
line-by-line analysis, but let's discuss the idea of
multiple translations itself.

God's original words were written down in Hebrew,
Aramaic, and Greek.  Seeing as much of the population
at the time was completely illiterate, I do not think
that God expected everyone to learn these three
languages.  I also do not believe that God meant for
only peoples with these native languagaes to be saved.
So that leaves us with the problem of translating the
Holy Word of God into another language.

Now, I think that the original manuscripts should be
held in highest esteem, whenever found, and that they
should be considered the standard to which all others
should be compared.  Creating a version by translating
a previous translation into a new language is tricky
and can lead to lots of problems.  The King James
Version was written as a translation of the Latin
Vulgate, which in turn was a tranlation of the 
original texts.  You can see how this is a problem.

There are several issues to consider when translating
any text into another language:

a.  Idioms in the original language -- "He kicked the
bucket" can be translated word-for-word into Japanese,
but the meaning that the fellow died would not be 
clear because it is a figure of speech only in English.  
Knowing the idioms in an ancient language is even 
harder but as the body of text grows (both scriptural 
and secular) we have a greater understanding of the 
situations in which certain phrases were used.

b.  Idioms in the target language -- We have to be
very careful when translating into English because a
phrase common in one region may be totally unheardof
in another.  English is particularly frustrating
because so many people from so many different cultures
consider it to be their language.  Does this mean that
we should take out any English phrases that can be
misunderstood?  If we do this, we end up with what
sounds like "legalese", which doesn't flow and which
isn't easily understood by anyone.  No, we have to
accommodate the idioms of the target language but 
also recognize that what we create will age and become
less useful as the language continues to grow and
change.  This gets back to the reverence for the
oldest manuscripts.

3.  Rhetoric.

Large sections of the article contained nothing but
hateful comments with no actual arguments to discuss.
I'll point out these sections when I go line-by-line
through the article but you probably recall some of
the sections where the tone and content did not have
anything to do with discovering the truth or lovingly
rebuking a fellow Christian.  There were several
statements that twisted the NIV meaning in much the 
same way that Satan twisted verses in tempting Christ.
If we are to be fair and logical about this 
discussion, we need to avoid hateful comments that
have nothing to do with the argument at hand.  More
on this later, when I can cite specific sentences.

======================================================