You should take another look. What translations does your church approve of ?
You are right. I errantly conflated the Hail Mary with the following KJV text. It was careless reading on my part.
Nevertheless, the Hail Mary, to which I objected, is unsupported as Biblical language, unless one accepts Jerome’s handling of Luke 1:28 as effectively a re-inspration of the same text into Latin with new and significantly different verbiage. In one sense this is identical to the KJV-Onlyist who claims the 1611 KJV is a re-inspiration of the Received Text into English.
Both theories are defective, in that they allow the introduction of novel and incorrect doctrines through human manipulation of the text, which is why reformational Protestants such as myself would tend to reject such theories as fonts of heresy, and press toward the primitive text as far as God enables us.
Your other question concerning approval or non-approval of various translations is a question of ecclesiastical authority, and it goes beyond your original question, which was:
“Can you show me any part of this that is unbiblical or incorrect …”
The authority question has been handled on these threads many times over. I think the RC authority construct is hopelessly circular, but it would probably be redundant and unproductive to go off on that tangent when the question you asked is so much easier to address as a matter of the objective history and content of the text.
To summarize then, there is an entirely Protestant interpretation to all the texts you presented, even the so-called “Hail Mary,” as long as one allows the meaning of the original Greek to prevail. By which I mean that Protestants do see grace in Mary, but her as a recipient of grace, like any other sinner made whole by Christ; and Protestants do see the angel greeting Mary, but with a greeting of rejoicing, not worshipping.
Before you protest, I do understand the purported differences between atria, dulia and hyperdulia, but I do not think the vast majority of rank and file Catholics grasp such fine distinctions, and it puts their souls at risk. I am certain my own Catholic relatives do not. They have merged their feminism with their Marian ideas to create a female deity coequal to Christ. I am sure that is as repugnant to you as it is to me.
However, we have to live our faith, and any doctrines that lead to such dangerous places in practice ought to have the highest degree of Scriptural verification of correctness, for if God says it, no matter how confounding, it must be true. But if God has not said it, woe to that man or woman who presumes to put words in Gods mouth. Eternity is nothing to trifle with.