The article makes an error.
"For many Jews and Christians, religion dictates that the words of the Bible in the original Hebrew are divine, unaltered and unalterable. "

This is not true. The doctrine is very specific and refers to the words of the original autographs. Those words, as originally written down are what we hold to be inerrant. Further, we do believe that the copies we have today are substantially the same as those autographs.
I see nothing in that article that would dispute that.

The art of textural criticism has long studied how mss errors occur, and has established general rules. One of these is illustrated in the article---the longer reading is to be preferred. The reasoning is that it is more likely that a scribe might skip a line or a word rather than add. There are exceptions, even to this, such as explanatory comments ( margin notes) that might have been added to the text during a recopy .

__________________
1982 300SD " Wotan" ..On the road as of Jan 8, 2007 with Historic Tags