CathInfo.com

Matthew makes such excellent points in reply #6.
 
Looking at the links posted by the OP, they say:

Dr. William G. von Peters has transliterated the text into modern English.

So, if this text has been “transliterated into modern English” I’m not understanding how it can be “The Original and True Rheims New Testament of 1582”.  How is it somehow more “authentic” than Bishop Richard Challoner’s revision in the 18^th century?

Also, who wrote the annotations that were mentioned?  Are they from Dr. von Peters?  Who is he? I’m not casting aspersions on him, I just have no idea of who he is or his authenticity as a genuine (and traditional) Catholic bible scholar.
 
A safe resource is the Fr. George Haydock (1774-1849) commentary.  It is expensive in hard copy (also check the used book market) but available online: https://haydockcommentary.com.

Like Ladislaus, I also like the Fr. Ronald Knox translation.

when I say "Holy Spirit" I become immediately suspect of Modernism. 

As well they should! How else are we to quickly size up when we're dealing with a "new" Trad, who might need some help, etc., a Novus Ordo Catholic who probably needs a LOT of help and holds a lot of errors/baggage from their years in material heresy, and a life-long Trad who we can trust more quickly? These clues are usually quite reliable indicators.

That is why I don't call myself a "Christian". People will RIGHTLY assume I'm some sort of Protestant. I can shout "Hey, don't jump to conclusions! Get to know me and you'll know!" or "ACKTCHUWALLY Christian can mean Catholic" all I want -- I'd be sending out the wrong signal, an actual CONTRARY signal to the signal I should be sending.

Don't kick against the goad, I say. Conquered ground is conquered ground -- give it up already. Reality is reality. Don't be like Denethor in the Return of the King *movie* where he sends a bunch of soldiers to certain death to retake Os Giliath. Give it up, regroup, and live to fight another day.

If you want to tell your co-workers about your "intercourse" with the mailman, or wear rainbow stuff because you like bright colors -- be my guest. Meanwhile I'll refrain from ignoring reality, modern connotations held by words -- and conquered ground.

Matthew makes such excellent points in reply #6.
 
Looking at the links posted by the OP, they say:



So, if this text has been “transliterated into modern English” I’m not understanding how it can be “The Original and True Rheims New Testament of 1582”.  How is it somehow more “authentic” than Bishop Richard Challoner’s revision in the 18^th century?

Also, who wrote the annotations that were mentioned?  Are they from Dr. von Peters?  Who is he? I’m not casting aspersions on him, I just have no idea of who he is or his authenticity as a genuine (and traditional) Catholic bible scholar.
 
A safe resource is the Fr. George Haydock (1774-1849) commentary.  It is expensive in hard copy (also check the used book market) but available online: https://haydockcommentary.com.

Like Ladislaus, I also like the Fr. Ronald Knox translation.

This is a sample of the original text: https://www.churchlatin.com/_files/ugd/53aa8c_cefe0952a9bd43beb78dd4cabeb61b52.pdf

As I understand it, Dr. Peters text is just updated to modern standardized spelling and notation.
I have a facsimile copy of an original. I don't notice that much difference in the actual text compared to the Challoner, it's just that the original has extensive annotation. The annotations being primarily attributed to Fr. Martin.