it's really difficult to say which one is the "most accurate"
one reason is that there are all types of different translations,
some change the text around so that what was being conveyed in the original language is readable.
some translate the text word for word, which is really hard to follow and a lot of the things like idioms are lost on the reader.
and everything inbetween.
there are pros and cons to both sides of this spectrum.
another reason is that they're being translated from different manuscript families.
like the douay rheims the trad catholics will tell you about is a translation (english) of a translation (latin vulgate) of a translation (old latin pre-jerome) of a translation (greek/aramaic), so it's riddled with inaccuracies.
a man named challoner revised the douay rheims by copying from the KJV, most people talking about douay rheims are using his version, so these posts
>>11578075 >>11578069 are funny.
