The Vulgate replaced the Old Latin Bible and was expressly used only in the western Church.
The rest of the Bibles you quote are essentially based on Textus Receptus or TR, a 16th century collection of 12th century Greek texta and Staphanes' French Greek sources (all of which are latter-day copies).
This was done because no one but Wycliffe believed the Vulgate was a true translation of the Greek originals, so the English speaking community wanted an English-language translation based on Greek text. Trouble is, the quality of the Greek text was extremely poor, with plenty of copying errors, editions, deletions, and so on.
TR is an expressly unreliable source of Greek Text. Where needed verses were missing, they were supplemented by using Vulgate and retro-translating a Latin translation backwards into Greek again. Portions of the Revelation of John was done that way and other examples are plentiful.
Thus in Acts 9:6 the section reading "And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me do..." is not found in any Greek manuscripts but was added to TR from Vulgate.
There are also known forgeries such as (in)the famous Pericope Adulterae and Comma Johanenum that are incorporated into the TR, and from Tr ended up in just about any English bible afertwards.
Your own refreence lists Alexanbdrian text (4th century complete Greek bible) as having "boast" and so does latter-day Hort and Westcort, which are Alexandrian sources in English. The other two are TR versions.
Can you recommend an Orthodox bible in English?
****The rest of the Bibles you quote are essentially based on Textus Receptus or TR, a 16th century collection of 12th century Greek texta and Staphanes’ French Greek sources (all of which are latter-day copies).****
Not quite. Those from the Revised Version onward use the Alexandrian, Vatacanus and Sinaiaticus texts of the 4th century and say “burnt” except for the Confraternity text.
Again, what of those burnt by Nero and those eaten by lions in the Arena.