You talk about your "armchair theologian" -- here we got an "armchair Scripture scholar" with no formal training in Latin, Greek, Scriptural exegesis, etc.
She read an article somewhere once, and that makes her an expert.
The Challoner version is just fine. It is approved by the Church, and extremely accurate, with the same meanings as the equivalent Vulgate text. I haven't seen any lists or cases where the Challoner distorts or gives a different meaning. But I can read and understand the Vulgate; what do I know?
I'm locking this thread.