[kosta50]

The Orthodox also don't have quite the same OT canon, as (if I remember right) there is an extra Psalm and some include 3&4 Maccabees

Some of those are artificial divisions. But the point is that there are some seriously diverse, even, diametrically opposed verses in different OT canons. The EOC uses "Septuagint" (LXX) as authoritative. The problem is that there are at least three major version of this Book, Sinaiticus (the oldest, 4th century), Vaticanus and Alexandrianus (most recent, 5th century). The last one, which is closer to the Masoretic Text (Hebrew version) is the least reliable.

The problem of authenticity of the Septuagint is no different than of the whole Bible, as additions and deletions, transcriptual errors and other things really make it impossible to determine whose version is the "original" (since we don't even have a complete "original" save for the Sinaitucs (which also contanes books of the NT no longer considered canonical, such as the Epistle of Barnabas).

Compared to the KJV version of the OT (based on the Hebrew OT) you encounter such amazingly different verses as Isaiah 9:6

KJV "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace"

LXX (Vat) "For a Child is born to us, and a Son is given to us, whose government is upon His shoulder; and His name is called The Messenger of Great Counsel; for I will bring peace upon the princes, and health to Him."

or 9:8

KJV "The Lord sent a word into Jacob, and it hath lighted upon Israel"

LXX (Vat) "The Lord has sent death upon Jacob, and it has come upon Israel."

as one of numerous examples. Some of these differences are blamed on absence of vowel markings in the pre-rabbinical Judaism. That, however, does not establish one as authoritative and the other as not with any certainty.

For instance, in the New Testament, the words "fasting" or "fast" have been added in several places, etc. and some of +John's verses have been added at a later date as well. The thing, of course, to look for is the context, but always mindful of the thin ice we are stepping on.

[redgolum]

Which is a perfect example of why you should, when really getting into what different Bible verses say, have a couple of different translations from different strains of thought.

What has become (by default) the American Protestant canon and Bible came from the KJV. Now, I love reading the KJV aloud. Many of my Christmas memories are of my father and grandfather reading the Gospel stories of Jesus's birth. But the KJV has problems. All translations have problems. If you know, or have an idea, of what they are and how different versions compare, they can understood relatively easily. The book "Whose Bible Is It Anyway?" is a great intro to this.

Interesting thing about the LXX. For a long time, it was said that the LXX did not follow any Hebrew texts. Which is why if you read an English translation of the Torah today, the prophecies of Christ in, say, Isaiah, are not there. But when the Dead Sea Scrolls were found, something rather shocking was seen. The Dead Sea Scrolls are in Hebrew, but they follow more the LXX than the Masoretic Text. It was one of the more controversial finds in the scrolls, and was why some have called them fakes.