If you look at your Bible at home, chances are very likely it will have a publish date of 1899.
.
.
Did you know that it is not the original Douay-Rheims?

.

Did you know that the original Douay-Rheims was suppressed for almost 200 years?



.
.
.
http://www.realdouayrheims.com/

You can prefer whatever you prefer, but there's nothing wrong with the 1899 Challoner revision of the Douay Rheims.

That edition was approved by the pre-Vatican II Catholic Church, or the timeless Magisterium of the Church, which is infallible and thus good enough for me.

(Vatican II doesn't come under the ordinary Magisterium, because it was a novelty which completely broke with Tradition, and completely refused the protection of the Holy Ghost.)

There are no examples of where the Challoner revision is deficient, or changes any of the original texts in a way that is dangerous or changes the meaning. The Challoner  Douay-Rheims is slavishly accurate.

I know Latin, so I can more or less read the original Vulgate and understand it. (Sure, I might have to look up some words...) Can you say the same thing?

I will say this:

I would bet money you haven't been a Trad as long as I have, as well as those in my family. My family's "Trad" status goes back to the very beginning of the movement. I am part of Thomas A. Nelson's extended family (he is my dad's uncle). He was a pioneer in the movement.

All of this is to say: I know -- intuitively, deeply, and essentially -- what it means to be Trad. For all the Trads I knew and grew up with, the Challoner Douay-Rheims was the best choice, and certainly did the job. If we needed to "go back further", you better believe that a large number of the Trads I grew up with WOULD HAVE.

I'll share a bit of wisdom with you: When you have an individual who is already seeking the truth at all costs, totally isolated from the non-Trad members of his family and friends, etc. do you really think he's going to stop before embracing "the real deal" like the original Douay-Rheims? Let's face it: none of his non-Trad family or friends uses an old-fashioned translation like the Challoner Douay Rheims to begin with. You think he lacks the moral courage to go all the way or something? What difference would it make? Once you're completely isolated and alone as far as religion, there's not much more you can give up.

It's like downplaying or dismissing the fortitude of the martyrs, since they only faced death for Christ, but didn't face death for Christ wearing a fool's outfit. Do you really think, if it were required or offered to them, that these fearless martyrs wouldn't don a fool's attire as well, if God asked that of them? "He who does the greater, can always do the lesser." If a man can run 100 miles, he can certainly run 100 miles plus an inch! And the distance between the NAB, NAV, KJ, etc. and the Challoner Douay-Rheims is the equivalent of 100 miles. At best, the distance between the Challoner and "original" is 1 inch.

Young upstarts from 2017 discover Tradition in one way or another and they're all fervent and excited, and attempt to out-Trad those who have been Trad literally all their lives. That, of course, is ridiculous.

Young converts are so full of zeal, they immediately go into TEACHING mode when they really need to zip their lips and open both ears, and go into DOCILE, LEARNING MODE for several years, to get caught up with what they missed out on all their lives.

Unfortunately, with pride being a basic human failing (after the Fall), this seldom happens.

You don't know how it works at all.

They are both public domain; T.A.N. could have published either one. If he thought there was a significant difference, there was nothing stopping him from going with the "original" Douay-Rheims.

I've read that quote before, BTW. It came up on CI literally YEARS ago. It doesn't change the fact that it's an exaggeration at best. I've read the Challoner cover-to-cover several times, and I've browsed many quotes from the Vulgate and I've never seen a significant difference. I've ever looked into the quotes from those (like you) pushing the original Douay Rheims -- the arguments simply didn't hold water.

Well, like Luther said, one man with scripture has more authority than all the popes and councils!

This general line of thinking employed by the OP-- also found in Feeneyites, and people like Michael Hoffman-- is latent modernism.  People forget that modernism manifests itself differently in different disciplines.  You see, unfortunately, traditional Catholics who behave no differently than the modernist historian, even if they do not give in to modernist philosophy or theology directly.  They implicitly deny the intermingling of the human and divine, particularly the Church's ordinary magisterium as infallible.  They simply do not believe this.  To quote from Pope St. Pius X in Pascendi:

.
One can't help but join with the holy saint's caustic and sarcastic disdain for these people.

To say that one who prefers the original 1610 Douay-Rheims over the 1899 revision is a "modernist" is the most nonsensical statement I've heard in a while. 
.
.
Preferring what is older is not "modern," it is TRADITIONAL.

This general line of thinking employed by the OP-- also found in Feeneyites, and people like Michael Hoffman-- is latent modernism.  

I'm not a fan of Feeney or Hoffman. Your statement of so-called latent modernism is false.
.
.
You distract from the truth, and it is clear that is your intention.
.
.
If there were not significant changes made in 1899, the guy printing up the 1610 Bibles would be out of business, eh? But, he is not..
.
.
Once more, nothing but scoffing all around from those who think they know all and could not possibly be wrong about anything. Because it would take an act of humility to acknowledge that you have been deceived.
.
.
I can accurately guess that you are a globe-earther, as well.
.
What is your answer to the changing of the word "compass" to "globe" in the 1899 Bible? Does that not matter to you?
.
.
Do you believe in heliocentrism too?
.
.
If so, then it's safe to assume you have placed the primacy of Copernicus, NASA, heliocentrism, and science, over the primacy of the infallible magisterium of the Church.