Of course. But as I said, I find it ridiculous to make different standards for all the languages.
Now, you say that Old Standard is biased toward English. It is true. BUT, it happens that this is the most happy thing that could have happened. Imagine if Old Standard was biased toward Portuguese or Italian: English people (and people speaking languages where one letter can be pronounced in more than one way) would have difficulties understanding how to pronounce the word. Having the standard already set to address the problems of letters being pronounced in more than one way is a luck, it makes the standard already compatible with all the languages. It can result to be overly complex for languages like Portuguese or Italian, but it is necessary for other languages.
As for the Bible or New York examples: consider that, in most cases, when a proper noun is translated in other languages it is not because a translator made the decision to translate it; it is because the population changed the word naturally with the passing of time to import the word into their language and make it sound more "local".
So at the end the concept is one: translating proper nouns=bad thing.
You can choose if it is a good thing to have a common transliteration system or one system for each language. I find that the better solution is having one common system, which may become a bit more complex but at least is shared and is a common knowledge. Having different systems can quickly become a way to create confusion and misunderstandings, underlining the need too have a common way to represent things.