Your statement about 'Protestant bible translation' is not true. Do you have a particular translation in mind when you make that statement?
Actually all of the 'Protestant' translations that I know of are translated directly from Greek and Hebrew texts. The only exception I know of is John Wycliffe's translation. It was translated from Latin in the 1380s. There is no intermediate translation step between the original language and the English version. I'd like to say something about the Greek text - the text of the New Testament in this post. There has been much study of the Greek manuscripts on whici the current Greek text is based over the last 500 years. There has also been much archeological discovery.
The following is a quote from 'The New Testament Documents - Are They Reliable' by F.F. Bruce, IVP 1985.
The evidence for our New Testament writings is ever so much greater than the evidence for many writings of classical authors, the authenticity of which no-one dreams of questioning. And if the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, their authenticity would generally be regarded as beyond all doubt. ... There are inexistence over 5000 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament in whole or in part. The best and most important of these go back to somewhere about AD 350... Earlier still is a fragment of a papurus codex conaining John 18:31-33, 27 ...dated on palaeographical grounds around AD 130... ... Perhaps we can appreciate how wealthy the New testament is in manuscript attestation if we compare the textual material for other ancient historical works. For Caesar's 'Galic War' (composed between 58 and 50 BC) there are several extant MSS, but only 9 or 10 are good, and the oldest is 900 years later than Caesar's day... The 'History of Thucydides' (c. 460-400 BC) is known to us from eight MSS, the earliest belonging to about the beginning of the Christian era. The same is true of the 'History of Herodotus' (C. 488-428 BC). Yet no classical scholar would listen to an argument that the authenticity of Herodocus or Thucydides is in doubt because the earliest MSS of their works which are of any use to us are over 1300 years later than the originals.
I do not have time to type more, but I recommend that book to you, as it contains a wealth of additional material.
Edited by Richh, : I incorrectly listed William Tyndale as the one who translated the Bible from Latin.
From CrazyDiamond7's reply, he says the problem is with the translation, not the doctrine.
There is much evidence that the Protestant bible translation is a sophisticated copy of the Catholic Bible, because since the Protestant bible had been showing up, all books of the new testament has been carrying precisely the same mistranslations and contradictions which proceeded from the one mastercopy which belongs to the spiritual ordinances that were left to the doctrine of the Catholicism and the [holy] Mother city--congregation, (i.e. Rome and the State of Vatican).
I believe the Douay-Rheims translation of the Catholic Bible are translated form the Vulgate, a Latin translation of the Bible translated by Jerome. That is a two step translation process. Jerome's translation is called the Vulgate because it was translated into 'common' Latin, the language of the people at the time. The New Testament was written in 'Koine' Greek- the common Greek of the people at the time it was written. This shows that the goal of scripture and translation is to be understood.
I want to add another quote from 'The New Testament Document' mentioned in my previous post.
The study of the kind of attestation found in MSS and quotations in later writers is connected with an approach known as teaxtual criticism. This is a most important and fascinating branch of study, its object being to determine as exactly as possible from the available evidence the original words of the documents in question. It is easily proved by experiment that it is difficult to copy out a passage of any considerable length without making one or two slips at least. When we have document like our New Testament writings copied and recopied thousands of times, the scope for copyist's errors is so enormously increased that it is surprising that there are no more that there actually are. Fortunately, if the great number of MSS increases the number of scribal errors, it increases proprotionately the means of correcting such errors, so that the margin of doubt left in the process of recovering the exact original wording in not so large as might be feared; it is in truth remarkable small. The variant readings about which any doubt remains among textual critics of the New Testament affect no material question of historical fact or Christian faith and practice.
Most Protestant translations are made directly from the text produced by this textual analysis.