Why do you think that the changes are intentional? The Wikipedia site does not make this allegation and I am not sure whether the sources given there are even correct: There is no verse "Aspice Domine" in psalm 119, and
https://gregorian.info gives Baruch 2,16 as source, which reads "Respice Domine" in the Clementine Vulgata and "Domine, prospice" in the Nova Vulgata". Maybe, it is even from another source.
I would make the choice of the text version dependent on the context.
If it is a liturgical context, I would use the officially approved version. In the catholic church, this can become difficult because the (today) mandatory bible translation in Latin is the
Nova Vulgata from 1979, whereas -obviously- most compositions are based on the older and notoriously inaccurate
Clementine Vulgata. Interestingly, the editors working on the Nova Vulgata were aware of this problem and fixed errors in the texts most frequently set to music (like the Magnificat) in such a way that the number of syllables did not change, so that the new text can be used with older music (example: "in Deo salutari meo" -> "in Deo salvatore meo").
If it is a concert context, I would use the version from the autograph unless the version most likely is an error. "Tribulationem" makes sense although the Nova Vulgata uses "desolationem" (you might consult someone knowing both Hebrew and Latin to check, which is closer to the Hebrew original in Dan 9,18). "duplex", however, is indeed weird and a typo might be explainable because "duplex" is a more common word than "supplex". OTOH, Latin is an extinct language and it is so complicated that even listeners who spent many years at school learning it will barely notice the difference (or even understand the text without a translation).