So much to comment on...
First, a bit of terminology: evangelical vs. fundamentalist. These should not be considered synonymous. Fundamentalists will often try to assume the name evangelical (because it is a much more respectable term than fundmentalist), but evangelicals will distance themselves from fundmentalists, shake their heads, and wish they would get their heads on straight.
The basic difference is this: fundamentalists have some very extreme views on cultural issues about life in general, will bleat on that the Bible is to be taken as literally true on every point, with the understanding that "true" means exactly the same thing as "fact", and will be inherently hostile to ideas that the Bible might have come into existence by any means other than it virtually falling out of th sky like a rock (i.e. God essentially dictating it to some scribes). Evangelicals are far more moderate in their attitudes about life in general, and as far as the Bible goes consider its truth to be primarily a matter of meaning instead of a matter of factual statement. Evangelicals are likewise quite open to and interested in the story of the development of the Bible through time.
Religions are most certainly not all the same. The core meaning and message of Christianity and Buddhism, for example could hardly be more opposite. Christianity 1) looks forward to the day when the evils of this world will be set right and it will exist in a manner like it does now but incomprehensibly better (being resurrected into it will be a good thing), 2) advocates being willing to suffer for the sake of goodness and looks to one who suffered and died and defeated death as its saviour and model of human goodness in this life, and 3) considers the transformation of the human person from a broken, sin-infested state to a healed, sinless state to be the primary spiritual quest, only to be completed utterly when all the world is made new. Buddhism 1) sees this world as inherently full of suffering and seeks only to escape it (being reincarnated is a bad thing), 2) looks to one who attained perfect peace and tranquility as the model for human life on this earth and believes in no saviour but oneself, and 3) and considers the primary spiritual quest to be attaining nirvana (going where the candle flame goes when you blow it out), which is to be completed in this life so that one can escape its suffering forever. As you can see, the two religions are utterly different and opposed.
Regarding the Apocrypha, the following should be noted: the books now classified as the Apocrypha were always a part of the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, that was in common use in the first century AD. From its inception the Christian Church always used the Septuagint as its Bible, to which they appended the various writings of the New Testament. It was only after Christianity had grown large that Judaism decided to turn away from the Septuagint and go back to the original Hebrew versions exclusively. When the Christians made translations of the Bible into Latin or Persian or what have you, they always included the Septuagint's larger list books. The idea of having only the smaller list of books usually found in Protestant Bibles today did not come about until Luther decided to go make a German translation of the Bible, and used the Hebrew maunscripts available to him to do so. The thing was, after Judaism and Christianity had gone their separate ways, Judaism had dropped those books now called the Apocrypha, and Luther used that as his text instead. There is no better reason for Protestant Bibles dropping the Apocrypa than that.
I could talk about more stuff, but this is way to long as it is.
