This got me curious: how many versions actually say "may" instead of "should" (or "shall") in this ever-so-famous verse? As it turns out, not many: the NRSV, the REB, the NEB, and Moffat were the only ones I could find. So I got to thinking, is this what happens when someone applies KJV-Only principles to some other version? I mean, I've seen plenty of KJVOs shouting online about how this or that modern version (or "perversion," as they're so fond of calling them) has "changed God's Word," insisting that this or that word in a modern version is completely wrong. But rarely have I seen this level of dogmatism applies to some other version. Clearly, this person, who was so fired up about "should vs. may" believed that the integrity of the Word of God was at stake here. Her advice to "see the Bible" indicates that it's a matter of correct vs. incorrect, right vs. wrong, for her.
When it comes to John 3:16, I've seen plenty of legitimate debates about whether to use "so" or "so much," or whether to use "only" or "only begotten." Certainly, there have been KJVOs who have accused modern versions of erring by not using the word "begotten." They believe the divinity of Christ to be at stake. As my wife so accurately pointed out, saying one word or another in English is the "correct" one is kind of ridiculous, when one considers that the only truly correct words would be the original Greek of the passage. And in many cases, that original Greek is very likely a translation of words that were originally spoken in Aramaic.
My whole point here is, how dogmatic can we be about individual English words when it comes to the Bible? Obviously, if a translator were to write "God so loved the cosmos that he gave his only born child," people would think it sounded odd. And yet, technically, this would be a moderately accurate rendering. Sure, "child" and "son" are not exactly equivalent, but "cosmos" is the Greek word used in the passage, and "born" is a pretty everyday rendering of "begotten." When it comes to English words, how do we decide which ones are accurate, which ones are pretty close, and which ones are completely wrong?
The above critique of the KJV's beloved version of one of the Bible's most beloved verses was clearly motivated by a deep desire for accuracy, but the critic neglected to consider the work of many eminently qualified scholars who have differing opinions. My guess is, she was parroting the point of view of a teacher or pastor, who had made a big point out of the auxiliary verb in the passage. A small point was blown up into a crucial point. As I mentioned, I have seen this kind of thing all the time in my past interactions with KJV Only advocates. I guess it was just a matter of time before someone applied it to a non-KJV version. After all, if you become convinced that some versions of the Bible have altered God's Word in some way, you may also become convinced that you should "stand up for the truth." But that doesn't make you right.