Greetings in the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Before I reply, I must admit that I've not (yet) seen the article in question (owing to time/work) but have encountered these same 'difficult/archaic' arguments on a number of occasions in an attempt to discredit the Bible. I suppose there's a couple of points to make:
1. The language has devolved since 1611- a real 'dumbing down' of the population at large. As a result, we should hold fast to the words in the Bible and encourage folks to learn these so-called 'archaic' words. Bring folks up to the Bible, rather than lower the Bible to a people whose language has been- and indeed is- devolving.
2. We are told to "Study" the Bible. This involves more than reading. I find that the language of the Bible encourages me to study deeper and find the 'treasure' within its pages.
3. God the Holy Spirit Himself enlightens the person who studies the Bible (If we know the Author- Acts 16:31).The great myth of 'Get a Good News/ N.I.V 'cos it's easier to read' is daft: my father-in-Law was bought a Good News 'bible' on this basis and has never opened its covers.
4. One Book has blessed the church since 1611 and why do we need another?
5. It would be interesting to find out where/if Evangelical Outreach can tell us where God's Word is today? Hmmmmm.....

God Bless (and sorry for going on so long!)