Correct. A translation must faithfully replicate the original language and the author's intent. This pro-queer bit of lunacy is no Bible at all. It is nothing but a modernist abomination.
"A translation must faithfully replicate the original language and the author's intent. This pro-queer bit of lunacy is no Bible at all. It is nothing but a modernist abomination."
And that's tough to do, because of the change of idiom, etc., over the ages, and the inaccessibility of native speakers of ancient Greek or ancient Hebrew. There are Ancient Greek and Hebrew scholars, of course, by they, too, learned these ancient languages as second languages, and don't have (and can't get) the precise cultural reference points to make a translation.
Indeed, one of the reasons why Jerome's Vulgate is such an important piece of work is that he was able to write in Latin and read the Greek within the context of the ancient cultures in which he lived that read, spoke and lived it. So, when there were choices to be made, he was actually a man of that culture, and was able to make a choice based on the internal reference point which only a native speaker, native to the culture can have. There are no native speakers of ancient Greek in the world, but even if there were, there's nobody in the world today that grew up in the Roman Empire, who simply knew directly what the inferences of things were, in that context.
In other words, a translation is but an echo, but the truth is that even if you teach yourself ancient Greek and Hebrew, you're still only getting an echo of the ancient meaning, because a learned language is still not a native language, and the mind might be able to read the ancient words directly in that language, but it still sorts out their meaning through the prism of modern experience.
I should not put too much weight on slight differences in good, scholarly translations. The problem, for example, with the old KJV versus the Douai version isn't that either of them say anything different of substance, only that there are some books not in the KJV that are in the Douai, and the relative literary quality of the KJV is higher than the Douai. Likewise, the modern Catholic NAB is no literary treasure, at all. It is blunt and does not make an effort to be linguistically inspiring (and it ISN'T).
But if you set it alongside an NIV a KJV and a Douai, all four of those things translate it straight. Some are more poetic than others, but they are not shucking and jiving.
By contrast, set the Jehovah's Witnesses' New World Bible alongside them, and you'll read that, in the beginning, the Word was with God and the word was a god, and the Word became flesh.
And that decapitalized word and that article are theological choices, not translation choices.