In our (Catholic) Theology Degree, we are advised to use the RSV (CE), because it is 'closest' to the source languages ... so we use it for critical study of scriptural texts. But it is dry.
In my own work I use Douai Rheims, because I find the language more lyrical, but in individual phraseology, sometimes other versions have a nicer turn of phrase. It's purely a matter of taste.
As far as I understand, all Scriptural Scholars agree that although there are variations, the accepted translations do not alter the theological import and intention of the text.
Whilst there is a body of people who insist that either we don't know what was originally written, or its been mistranslated so badly all sense is lost, and ask, for example, which text is the 'real' or 'authoratitive' text, are usually either poorly-informed, or making waves to sell their latest book ...
As a note, the translations favoured by the mainstream denominations are all based on as near as 'original' texts as can be found, and are the work of scholars fluent in the source language. In Protestant/Catholic scholarship, this includes texts in Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, Syriac ... findings among the Qumran Documents, notably Daniel, for example, give a good cross-check reference.
+++
In the last century, scholars traced the 'family tree' of over 1,000 extant translations, to try and find the 'original' text ... what they found was that there was no one source that could be pinpointed ... but that all the early sources, and the subsequent translations, did not depart in any serious and problematic way from each other.
I'll try and dig out the research data in anyone's interested.
Thomas
