Critical scholarship is not for the faint of heart.

The laity are not bound to agree with the critical work of the specialists, but many do, wanting to appear enlightened and well-read. You can be a perfectly faithful Catholic, whether you think Isaiah the unified work of a single author or not.

The nature of biblical prophecy may be the most frustrating. With few exceptions, Catholics do not think that biblical writers were given visions of future events. Visions and dreams are considered literary techniques employed to bolster credibility.

This is especially true in the Book of Daniel.

However, the apocalyptic language in the Gospels, in Paul's letters and in the Book of Revelation stand, for the most part, as inspired impressions of coming events, but not necessarily to be understood literally.

[I recommend the Navarre Bible. Amazon has it. It's a little pricey.]

Or, stay with the NIV Study Bible. It's perfectly fine.

Even the Reformed Study Bibles available nowadays, gavin, are ok. Sproul's ESV version is helpful, but I like the one from Zondervan with the Reformed study aids in the appendix, WCF and catechisms. You know what I mean.

Choosing to become a Catholic boils down to doctrine and, specifically, to soteriology (how we are saved) and ecclesiology (the nature of the church).

Interpretation on a particular passage isn't likely to vary as much as the relative emphasis particular passages are given in one's doctrine of salvation or understanding of the church.

In my experience, Catholicism is the best at bringing to bear the entire witness of Scripture upon its doctrines. Non-Catholic theology overemphasizes some aspects of biblical theology and silences others, to their detriment.