Fair enough. But if the goal is "ascertaining what the original text(s) actually say", I'd suggest not using English at all, but rather use an accurate Greek version of the NT (such as the Nestle Aland 28th ed), or Hebrew version of the OT (such as the BHS). And software tools, a very powerful one I like is Logos. Both of these texts include apparatus for manuscripts and variants, as well as separate textual commentaries by the scholars who produced them. Logos has all these texts, and more, in digital form, morphologically tagged and cross-referenced to lexical and other translation tools.

If studying in English for "accuracy" and trying to get the best sense of the original--from English--right on. Picture a minister or anyone else, trying to support this or that interpretation and wanting to base it on a sound translation of the original. Particularly if they (as most ministers do these days) lack familiarity in the original languages. They are best served with accurate modern translations for example ESV, NASB, NRSV, etc., and a quality modern commentary, as well as quality software tools. Could not agree more.

If reading literature mainly for pleasure--which I took to be an unstated premise of this thread's discussion--literary beauty that has been proven through time, is a worthy consideration. I think the same would apply to the other example I gave, Pope's Homer. It too, in some ways is inferior to the modern text, due to Pope being one guy with no computers and limited translation tools, and even more limited manuscripts, being at his disposal in the 18th century. But the text despite mistakes, usually in minor details, is substantially correct. More than sufficient to give any reader the sense of what is going on. And more importantly, its translation style is unequaled for its musical poetic rendering, and comes closest to matching Homer's intent; this was the point in the NYT article. I feel the same about the KJV. This was kind of the point Alter was making, it was really about translation "style" and impact, and how that style aligned to the original style, not about the absolute textual precision of the text they were basing it on, how accurately they translated every single word, or whether their end result contained translation mistakes. It clearly did, but was accurate enough to convey the sense, even though few would recommend it as a basis for modern analytical study.