Don't the apocrypha make that a bit more complicated?
The core of the canon is still essentially the same as described by Athanasius[1]. He had the following to say about the apocryphal/deuterocanonical books:
there are other books besides these not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness
Consensus changed, and the books were incorporated into the proper canon. Centuries later, Martin Luther thought the church to be corrupt and its traditions no longer trustworthy; he argued that doctrine should be re-derived from Scripture alone. Given that the canon was itself a product of said tradition, he re-examined it and came to the conclusion that the deuterocanonical books shouldn't be considered capital-S Scripture. Fewer people are aware that he had similar misgivings about parts of the New Testament as well (Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation).
Some versions (ie translations) are presented with a political end, but they're relatively easily weeded out.
Translations tend to sit on a range from translating the idea to translating the specific words - that's why every Christian I know uses different versions, concordances, Bible dictionaries etc..
There are overarching themes that are not in dispute in these religious texts.