Certainly, a human element plays a part.
For me, with an English translation, what is key is how one approached Scripture.
Did one do so with the intent of doing, as best as one possibly could, a word-for-word translation of the Greek. Or was one's intent to make it more relevant to today (literal verses dynamic). The former approach has less subjectivity than the latter. Which is one reason why I like the NASB better than the NIV by far.
Our claim to inerrancy of the Word of God is in the original texts, not translations.
There have been scribal errors, printing errors, and yes, some translation errors throughout the ages because you have someone, a human being, with their hands on the process. By faith, we believe that such errors were not committed when the texts were originally written down. Of course, we don't have the originals. However, God has promised to preserve His word and with the care the Hebrew Scribes took to get the OT right, one would assume that the same God would make sure that the NT is intact as well.
I don't believe it is overstating that when one takes the Bible as a whole, no major doctrine (Christian essential) is lacking due to any of the so-called errors in the translations (even in some of the worse translations like NIV).
Of course not. Trouble is such concordance is limited to very generic concepts: Holy trinity and Christ's dual nature and will in one Person. Mainline Christianity really doesn't agree on more than that.
Once we get past that, anything goes precisely because of everything human mind and hand has done to the originals.