No it doesn't go without saying, specially because it means the translations are extremely biased towards showing a positive view of the texts and towards translations likely to reinforce their existing believes.
> the translations are extremely biased towards showing a positive view of the texts
That's certainly not true of reputable translations - you can easily verify this by just glancing at something widely available like e.g. an annotated version of the NIV - the scholarship and scrupulous attention to detail is evident.
The critical apparatus on the NET Bible is massive. The notes are well worth reading and probably unparalleled for anyone interested in ancient document translation.
“Bob Johnson’s fundraising efforts for John Smith’s campaign were motivated by a desire to seat the best candidate as President.”
Does that sentence say that Smith is the best candidate? No, it says that Johnson thinks that.
Would it be better if it were reworded to “…were motivated by a desire to seat who he thought was the best candidate as President”? No, that would just be redundant.
Does the original sentence imply that Johnson holds an unbiased, objective opinion of Smith? Of course not. If anything, it implies the opposite!
In your example "a desire" is unambiguously "the desire of Bob Johnson", but in your initial comment "a desire" is not part of a sentence or even paragraph that mentions an individual or a group, therefore is likely to make the readers assume the author (in this case you) is the one making the claim (in this case that means assuming you are the one who believes it's the most important document)
If you search online it is easy to find parallel texts showing, say, the Koine Greek and English side by side. I think you should try to see what you make of them.
