Prophets from Enoch (quoted in Jewish/Protestant canon both New and Old Testament) to Jesus Himself to John (Revelation) all proclaim an end to the world. Enoch prophesied the end of the pre-flood world by water. Even the time frame was prophesied - he was directed to name his son "Methuselah" (when he dies, it will come). From the record, the flood came the very year Methuselah died, and there are hints it was the same week.

There are numerous remains of the pre-flood world. Establishment explanations are total B.S. I won't go into it here. I recommend a young guy "Bright Insight" who has made it his mission to use crowd sourced funds to travel around the world and take high quality video of his tours of ancient sites. He often finagles access to areas off limits to tourists. Look for him on Rumble and probably still Youtube.

Prophets from Enoch to Peter to John proclaim a fiery end to the present Earth (as opposed to a watery end to the previous Earth). I actually think it will be an end to the entire present universe - but I could be convinced otherwise.

This is all part of the remedy for sin. How do you redeem creations with corrupted body, soul, spirit, while preserving their free will and personhood? "The heavens are the work of Your fingers" but "salvation is the work of Your strong right arm." Our bodies die, and are resurrected (everyone, the righteous and the wicked). We die to our self and are recreated as a new life in Christ. The world meets a fiery end, and is recreated as "the new heavens and the new earth". (New heavens is why I think the entire universe is slated for demolish and rebuild.) Jesus says, "I go to prepare a place for you." The new world is being made (completely different time line/fabric, so "is made" is probably accurate as well) ready for us.

nah. we gonna kill them probably

The arguments are not over the canon (mostly, Orthodox have 88 books, Catholic have 72, Protestant 66, Jewish have OT only - progressively tighter criteria for canonicity). As R.C. Sproul put it, "we have a fallible canon of infallible books". While Catholics/Orthodox complain about Protestants "throwing out" books (actually, they are read in church, used in Bible study, but just not regarded as canon), I think it is a good idea to start with the subset agreed on by absolutely everyone. Note that Catholic/Protestant/Orthodox all agree on the New Testament canon - although Luther considered ditching e.g. James ("an epistle of straw!") because the content didn't fit neatly with his preaching.

Many of the arguments are not even real arguments - but a failure to listen to the other side. For instance, the Protestant slogan "sola fide" (faith alone) is entirely acceptable to Catholic/Orthodox if modified to "sola fide formata". The issue is that "faith" or "belief" is used in two senses in the NT canon. Fide informis (intellectual assent) vs Fide formata (action based on faith). In fact, the phrase "sola fide", or "faith alone" in English only appears one place in the NT, in James, where he says, "therefore a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone". But there James is talking about fide informis. As he says shortly before, "You believe that this is one God? The demons also believe and tremble." One way of qualifying in English is "believing that" vs "believing in".

Charles Blondin was a famous French acrobat known for walking a tight rope across dangerous terrain. On his US tour, he walked across Niagra Falls. At each performance, he would ask the crowd, "Do you believe I can walk to the other side and back on that tightrope?" "Yes!" the crowd would reply. And after working the excitement to a satisfactory pitch, he would proceed to do exactly that, often adding additional stunts en route.

One time, he asked the crowd, "Do you believe I can carry a man on my back to the other side and back on that tightrope?" "Yes!" the crowed screamed, excitement building as usual. "I need one brave soul to volunteer for the trip!" Crickets. Finally, his business manager volunteered, and the feat was performed as promised. The crowd believed THAT he could do it. The business manager believed IN the ability of Charles to do so.

The wars between Catholic and Protestant were mostly over the Authority of the Pope - who had become in effect Emperor of the World during the wars to push back the Moslem conquest of Europe ("Crusades"). The German princes seized on Luther as a religious leader to gain the support of the people to rebel against the Pope - this was more of a political than a theological issue.

Other issues resulting in localized violence was persecution of the Anabaptist sects. These did not believe in infant baptism, and their members were rebaptized. This was seen by mainstream churches as claiming their baptisms were invalid (kinda true). Heresy (perceived or real) often gained a death penalty. Sadly, even this was not a deep disagreement. Catholics first dealt with the death of martyrs under Roman persecution before baptism by proclaiming it a "baptism of blood". Then what about still born babies, or infants who died before baptism. If the parents intended to baptize the child, this was called a "baptism of desire". Anabaptist believers intended to baptize their children, and did so when the child could communicate their desire to do so. This is in effect a "baptism of desire".

Satoshi expostulated, "Do you not realize I’m speaking about church leaders who expound such differences to their followers?"

At high enough temperatures, distinctions in physics disappear. Electrons, protons, neutrons, etc all become quarks. Einstein showed that E = mc², but matter and energy become not only equivalent, but indistinguishable and inseperable at temperatures like the early universe.

Similarly, with severe enough persecution, distinctions between Christian groups disappear. In a prison camp, rules about communion between Catholic/Protestant are suspended. My high school chemistry teacher had a poster, "In the event of nuclear attack, all rules against praying in school are temporarily suspended." It is said that there are no atheists in foxholes. (I haven't served, myself.)

BTW, the canon is which books are authentic. "Texts" refers to different manuscripts. OT manuscripts are very consistent. NT manuscripts all have errors (not typos, but "scribals"?). But there are thousands of them, so you can make a tree out of all the versions, and get the original reading with only a few passages in question (none very important).