Yes I do have evidence, and so do you:
As soon as you are picking between translations to make a point, you know that you are relying on nuances that are not consistent across all translations. This is clear flag that there might be something archaic, strange, or loaded in the translations.
The wrong approach is to just arbitrarily pick the translation that suits your reading. Instead, you have to actually look at the original language and the history of interpretation.
It is important also to note that this is a testable hypothesis:
It is testable by look at historical interpretations of Genesis. If @Faizal_Ali was correct, we would see a clear signature in the evidence. If he is so sure this is the clear reading of Genesis, he should provide the evidence.