I got the book for Easter. But I had noticed some things about the book that struck me as odd. For the most part, the book was right about the mistranslation of the word Aion, the verses that people seem to overlook when reading the bible, the Schools of Alexandria, Antioch, Ceasaria, and Edessa, along with Origen, Clement, Gregory of Nyssa, St. Macrina, Theodore of Montepusa and Diodore of Tarsus.
What Im a bit leary on are some of the biblical claims made. First off, they seemed to make indication that 2 Peter and Jude were both pseudonymous, and influenced by a later writer of no inspiration under the teachings of Loch and Enoch.
The book also stated that there were two versions of the New Testament, one from Egypt and the other from Babylon. The Egyptian one being the version the Sepugiant that Jesus spoke from.
The book also seemed to give much of the blame to St. Jerome, when in fact many scholars believe that Jerome was a Universalist. Personally, I would say Augustine and Justinian did more damage than Jerome.
They seemed to portray Evangelical Churches in a way that made them all look like close minded cultists who did not want people to learn, but only wanted people to understand the scriptures the way that their church does.
They also portrayed a Catholic priests who was willing to do biblical studies even if they did not agree with church doctrine.
They also indicated that many people who have done some critical bible studies with a bias against universal salvation and for eternal torment came back believing in Universal Salvation.