I would be wary of Protestant bibles. Just as an example, I ran a search on several, and the words which Catholics tranlate “do penance” are translated merely as “repent” by the Protestants. So to them, because of their translation, the Bible says nothing about doing penance.
The word is
metanoia, which means “to change mind”, and means
repent. Only the DR, translating from the Vulgate, translates it as
do penance, as the Latin is not subtle enough to be able to express the concept of “repent” over against the performance of penance. This is not anti-Catholic at all: how does one repent?
By doing penance! What does the Greek say?
Repent!
Now, the fact that presbuter (priest) and episkopos (bishop) are translated as “elder” and “overseer” in many Bibles - including all Catholic ones except for the NAB and DR - is a little worse. As are mistranslations of the Virgin Birth narrative (KnNT), “had not had sexual relations with her until
after she had given birth”.
But, with something like the RSV-CE tearing the actual prophecy of the Virgin Birth out of the Old Testament, de-Christianizing the entire thing (especially the Psalms), translating “thou” subconsciously biased against Christ’s deity, it’s hard to complain.
Outside of a very few instances (translating the Gk “erg” words, for one), such as translating the “erg” words - those that mean “work” - as something that has no implication of “good works” in any place where it would affirm Catholic doctrine, and this only in the NIV (a poor translation), very few mainstream translations are specifically biased outside of those produced by cults, such as the New World Translation, or those by individuals, even exceptional scholars, such as
The Kingdom New Testament (NT Wright),
The Five Gospels (Crossan and Borg),
Knox’s Translation (Knox), etc., as they don’t have a committee to keep individual idiosyncrasies in check.
Of course, the most Catholic Bible, and the most reliable Bible, I believe is the Douay-Rheims Challoner revision, but it can be a true clunker in English. Much more beautiful, and nearly as accurate, is the King James Version, the Confraternity, the New King James, the New American Standard, and, to a lesser extent, the English Standard, the Original Jerusalem Bible (without notes only), and the Revised Standard - Second Catholic Edition.
Now, myself, I only use the Douay-Rheims and the King James and New King James and New American Standard, because I believe in the Traditional Text (the Vulgate and Byzantine text-type, of which I believe the Byzantine to be more pure, but neither differs on any matter of consequence, unlike the Byz and the Critical), and do not accept the naturalistic, secular methodology, nor, in consequence, the conclusions of - disregarding inspiration and preservation - the modern “critical text” theories (anything translated from Nestle-Aland; the BHS Old Testament is the Traditional Text as much as Bomberg is), where a text which was never lost or corrupted is felt to be needing to be restored.
That rounds out my list of “acceptable Bibles”, and, although I may have forgotten a few, note the conspicuous absence of the faith-destroying NAB, the Liberal Feminist Jewish Tanakh with a Unitarian New Testament strapped on called “NRSV”, the unbelieving NJB, etc., and the conspicuous presence of the arch-Protestant KJV. Even the Geneva Bible’s renderings itself aren’t very objectionable: like the NAB, the text isn’t objectionable, the notes are, although I’d rather read an anti-Catholic Bible, than an all-around anti-Christian secular one.