I've been curious as to what translations are generally acceptable because I've heard some do "modernize" but I've never cross referenced to check if true. Are Catholic translations acceptable? Do they have the full canon, because I thought they are missing a few books, not as much as Protestant translations?
I did notice someone posted this in the comments about the Douay-Rheims translation:
"A few more points in favor of the Douay-Rheims is that it is an English translation of the Latin Vulgate, a translation of the Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic texts produced by Saint Jerome in the late 3rd to early 4th centuries.
St. Jerome is a canonized Orthodox Saint, was one of the great Church Fathers, a scripture scholar, and fluent in Latin, Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic.
The Vulgate was translated using ancient manuscripts, some of which no longer exist. The Vulgate also predates the Masoretic Text, the oldest Hebrew manuscript tradition produced and distributed by the Jewish Masoretes between the 6th to 10th centuries. The Masoretic Text is an excellent manuscript tradition, but there's no telling what alterations the Masoretes made in their process to edit Christ out of the Bible. The Protestans get their 66 book canon from the Masoretic Text, and the Masoretes very likely cut out the deuterocanon because of how much it pointed to the reality of Christ and the Church.
Lastly, the Vulgate is a pre-East-West Schism text, making it a truly ecumenical translation."
If this is the case, why is the Douay-Rheims considered more a "Roman Catholic" translation rather than being just as much an Orthodox Christian translation?
Douey Rheims is missing the Anaginoscomena such as 4 Ezra, Baruch and 4 Maccabees
Lazarus Arise! For You Have Been Ressurected!