What do you think?
Rate this book
The Challenge of Creation: Judaism's Encounter With Science, Cosmology, and Evolution
SCIENCE
Do scientific explanations of phenomena remove the need for a Designer?
COSMOLOGY
How can the scientific account of the development of the universe be reconciled with Genesis?
EVOLUTION
Can Judaism accept the idea that animals and man evolved from lower forms of life via natural selection?
The Challenge of Creation is a completely revised and vastly expanded edition of The Science Of Torah. It explores and evaluates a broad range of different answers that have been proposed for these questions, as well as developing its own approach. Carefully, methodically, and eschewing sensationalistic or dogmatic claims in favor of reasoned analysis, it shows how some of the greatest Jewish thinkers explained Judaism and Genesis in a way that complements modern science rather than conflicts with it. The Challenge of Creation is an invaluable resource for anyone grappling with conflicts between science and religion. It is a profound work that has been widely acclaimed as the best book of its genre.
Do scientific explanations of phenomena remove the need for a Designer?
COSMOLOGY
How can the scientific account of the development of the universe be reconciled with Genesis?
EVOLUTION
Can Judaism accept the idea that animals and man evolved from lower forms of life via natural selection?
The Challenge of Creation is a completely revised and vastly expanded edition of The Science Of Torah. It explores and evaluates a broad range of different answers that have been proposed for these questions, as well as developing its own approach. Carefully, methodically, and eschewing sensationalistic or dogmatic claims in favor of reasoned analysis, it shows how some of the greatest Jewish thinkers explained Judaism and Genesis in a way that complements modern science rather than conflicts with it. The Challenge of Creation is an invaluable resource for anyone grappling with conflicts between science and religion. It is a profound work that has been widely acclaimed as the best book of its genre.
391 pages, Hardcover
First published July 18, 2006
3 people are currently reading
138 people want to read
About the author
Natan Slifkin
9 books43 followersBorn in England, Rabbi Dr. Natan Slifkin spent many years of study at yeshivot in Jerusalem and received his rabbinic ordination from Ohr Somayach Institutions. He graduated from the Lander Institute in Jerusalem with an MA in Jewish Thought and Law, and completed a PhD in Jewish history at Bar-Ilan University, with a dissertation on rabbinic encounters with zoology. Rabbi Slifkin has published numerous works on the interface between Judaism and the natural world. He has also taught at several institutions and is a popular lecturer around the world. Rabbi Slifkin is the founder and director of The Biblical Museum of Natural History in Beit Shemesh, Israel, and he lives with his family in Ramat Beit Shemesh.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
September 16, 2015
his book is written for a fairly limited audience, and for a fairly limited purpose: it seeks to persuade Orthodox Jews that traditional Judaism and evolutionary biology that the two are compatible. I do not have enough expertise in either to fully evaluate Rabbi Slifkin's arguments; nevertheless, this book did seem to me to be interesting and at least somewhat plausible.
Throughout this book, Slifkin repeats his core argument: that whatever science proves, it does not disprove Divine creation, but merely creates another question: "Where did the scientific laws come from?"
He then goes on to focus on the creation story of Genesis. He begins with the easy part- citing numerous eminent rabbis (such as Samson Raphael Hirsch) who were not enthuasiastic about young-earth creationism. But after rebutting numerous counterarguments, Slifkin goes on to address more difficult issues.
One such issue, for example, is the order of creation in Genesis. While modern scientific doctrine suggests that inanimate objects such as the sun and moon preceded plants and animals, a literal interpretation of Genesis might suggest that plants preceded the sun. Slifkin points out, however, that traditional Jewish interpreters have written that the Torah does not always address events in chronological order.
But why would this be so in Genesis 1-2? Slifkin suggests (based on statements by Gersonides and other classical authorities) that because sun worship was so common in the pagan world, the Torah seeks to downplay the importance of the sun. Slifkin then goes into more detail, suggesting that the Torah begins with a complicated conceptual sequence. To simplify his argument a bit, he writes that the Torah starts with immobile objects (light, then sea and sky, then vegetation), then goes to a higher level of complexity by discussing more mobile objects ranging from the most restricted (such as the moon) to the least restricted (mammals and man).
He ends by defending evolution, based on the broad Jewish principle that God normally operates through natural law. For example, astronomy operates through laws of science that mankind understands, and yet Jews praise God for the sun. Why should biology be different?
Going a little further, Slifkin criticizes the "intelligent design" (ID) movement from a religious point of view. ID (as Slifkin understands it) focuses on biological evidence that species were intelligently designed. Slifkin worries that this theory may have the unintended consequence of implying that God is irrelevant where such evidence is lacking.
On the other hand, Slifkin also criticizes atheistic evolutionists who argue that the cruelty and apparent pointlessness of natural selection argues against an intelligent God, raising a wide variety of explanations for this reality.
Throughout this book, Slifkin repeats his core argument: that whatever science proves, it does not disprove Divine creation, but merely creates another question: "Where did the scientific laws come from?"
He then goes on to focus on the creation story of Genesis. He begins with the easy part- citing numerous eminent rabbis (such as Samson Raphael Hirsch) who were not enthuasiastic about young-earth creationism. But after rebutting numerous counterarguments, Slifkin goes on to address more difficult issues.
One such issue, for example, is the order of creation in Genesis. While modern scientific doctrine suggests that inanimate objects such as the sun and moon preceded plants and animals, a literal interpretation of Genesis might suggest that plants preceded the sun. Slifkin points out, however, that traditional Jewish interpreters have written that the Torah does not always address events in chronological order.
But why would this be so in Genesis 1-2? Slifkin suggests (based on statements by Gersonides and other classical authorities) that because sun worship was so common in the pagan world, the Torah seeks to downplay the importance of the sun. Slifkin then goes into more detail, suggesting that the Torah begins with a complicated conceptual sequence. To simplify his argument a bit, he writes that the Torah starts with immobile objects (light, then sea and sky, then vegetation), then goes to a higher level of complexity by discussing more mobile objects ranging from the most restricted (such as the moon) to the least restricted (mammals and man).
He ends by defending evolution, based on the broad Jewish principle that God normally operates through natural law. For example, astronomy operates through laws of science that mankind understands, and yet Jews praise God for the sun. Why should biology be different?
Going a little further, Slifkin criticizes the "intelligent design" (ID) movement from a religious point of view. ID (as Slifkin understands it) focuses on biological evidence that species were intelligently designed. Slifkin worries that this theory may have the unintended consequence of implying that God is irrelevant where such evidence is lacking.
On the other hand, Slifkin also criticizes atheistic evolutionists who argue that the cruelty and apparent pointlessness of natural selection argues against an intelligent God, raising a wide variety of explanations for this reality.
April 14, 2024
A RABBI LOOKS AT INTERPRETATION OF THE TORAH, EVOLUTION, AND SCIENCE
Rabbi Natan Slifkin wrote in the introductory section of this 2006 book, “This book is written for those who are committed to the tenets of Judaism, but also respect the modern scientific enterprise and are aware of its findings, and who are therefore disturbed by the challenges that are raised for their understanding of Torah. It addresses these challenges by following the approach of .. Maimonides and similar Torah scholars towards these issues, which, while firmly within the framework of authentic Orthodox Judaism, is not the method of choice in many segments of the ultra-Orthodox community. But many have found that no other approach works as well in solving these difficulties.”
He adds in the Introduction, “This book was written for several reasons. First, I discovered that none of the works currently available on Torah and science… comprehensively deal with the issues at hand… The sophisticated and critical reader seeking to find a rational basis for believing in a Creator is left dissatisfied by popular works on this subject. Another example is with the age and development of the universe… Jewish literature …generally deal with it in a superficial manner… Some books are quoting scientists completely out of context or are reprinting arguments from thirty years ago that have long been disproved… Most other books on Torah and science fall into two categories. One is the ‘rejectionist’ approach, which seeks to disprove the scientific theories that conflict with the simple understanding of Torah… this approach … is simply not satisfactory for most people who have a thorough grasp of modern science, and it causes Orthodox Judaism to lose intellectual credibility. Another is the ‘concordist’ approach, which accepts the findings of modern science and claims… that they are entirely consistent with the literal reading of the Torah… A further reason for compiling this work is that some highly valuable insights on the topic from important Jewish thinkers have not received public attention.” (Pg. 18-19)
After relating various evidences of ‘design’ in the universe, he observes, “one may wonder how atheists respond to such things. A common response if that the evidence is not extraordinary because there may be an infinite (or very large) number of universes. Thus, some of them are bound to be fortuitously arranged… The confusion here is over what precisely is amazing about the universe, and also over what the infinite-universe theory means… If one is referring to an infinite number of universes… which all have the same basic laws as ours… The complexity, the symmetry, and the beauty that we have described, would be present in all of these proposed universes. It is these that require a designer. The other proposal is that there are an infinite number of universes with an infinite number of systems of law. This would certainly mean that there must be some universes with fortuitous systems of law such as our own… However, the evidence for such a proposition… is precisely nil… Furthermore, on philosophical grounds, it seems more reasonable to propose that this universe was designed by a Creator than to propose that there are an infinite number of possible universes with an infinite number of possible scientific laws… Thus, mainstream science concedes that the universe if suspiciously fortuitous and that there is no independent evidence for multiple universes that would account for this.” (Pg. 53-55)
He acknowledges, “It is true that scientists are as human as everyone else and are prone to making mistakes and being influenced by personal bias. But most of the issues that concern us here---the development of the universe and of life---are well-supported by broad lines of evidence… and are not subject to the narrow perspective of a particular group… True, Rambam provided arguments against Aristotle’s eternal universe---but he was qualified to do so! One cannot compare Ramban’s rebuttal of Aristotle with the unconvincing and naïve ‘science’ of Biblical literalists today.” (Pg. 96)
He explains, “It is extremely important to bear in mind that the possibilities in interpreting Torah are not limited to literalism and allegory. Many types of interpretation do no fall neatly into either category… There is not black-and-white approach to literalism in the Torah. As with many topics, there have been heated debates regarding the extent of non-literal interpretation that it permitted.” (Pg. 103-104) Later, he adds, “There is a legitimate reason for being wary of non-literal understandings of the Torah, it that it puts one on a dangerous slippery slope. Where does one draw the line?... However, while this is reason to avoid non-literal explanations as much as possible, it is not reason to avoid them in limited circumstances where there are overwhelming grounds for accepting such explanations.” (Pg. 122)
He comments, “although there is basis for interpreting the word ‘day’ to refer to an ‘era,’ there is certainly no traditional precedent for explaining the six days of creation as referring to fourteen billion years. Historically, these were generally understood to be six regular 24-hour days… There are some traditional sources that interpret them as longer periods, but none in terms of billions of years. Yet this has not prevented people today from interpreting the word ‘day’ in this way.” (Pg. 129)
He notes, “A reservation voiced by some people is that many of the greatest Torah scholars today have not endorsed such views. However, this is not entirely accurate. While modern scientific cosmological explanations have not reached mainstream ‘official’ acceptance in some Orthodox circles, there have been important rabbinical figures who have legitimated reconciling these with Torah… Many Torah scholars privately endorse these approaches, even id they will not do so publicly due to the inability of much of the general public to accept it.” (Pg.131-132)
He argues, “asking ‘why create a fossil which appears to be a dead dinosaur if no such creature ever lived’ is a very reasonable and obvious question… Some claim that God might have implanted such a false history in order to test our faith in the truth of the Torah. First. although dinosaurs might have… become a test of faith for people… there are plenty of ways in which the age of dinosaurs is easily understood in light of the Torah. Second… the Torah’s description of Him indicates that He does not act in that way… The physical evidence contained in the world must reflect truth. Since God wrote the book of nature, everything in it must conform with the Torah; if it initially seems not to do so, we must check that both our understanding of the world and our understanding of Torah is correct.” (Pg. 159-160)
He explains, “the term ‘day’ can theoretically refer to more than one quantity of time. But what is its meaning in the context of the six days of creation? Simply speaking, the definition given in the Torah of one full period of light and darkness would mean a conventional day of twenty-four hours. Yet twenty-four hours is not really a definition, merely a different unit… The terms significance therefore requires the existence of the sun. But the sun was only created on the fourth day!... All this presents strong support for explaining the six days of creation as referring to six extended periods of time. The calendar begins less than six thousand years ago, but preceding it were six ‘days’ of Creation that lasted for billions of years. The legitimacy of using this approach to resolve the conflict between science and the Jewish calendar is widely (albeit not universally) accepted.” (Pg. 179-181)
He continues, “a substantial difficulty with any explanation that the six days are not six ordinary days is that the Torah does not only say that there were six days. Rather, the Torah also states that with each day ‘there was evening, and there was morning.’ It is difficult to imagine how this phrase could be interpreted if this does not refer to 24-hour periods on planet Earth… A more devastating problem with these approaches is that they simply do not solve the contradictions with science… although this approach reconciles the difference between a time span of six days and a time span of fourteen billion years, the EVENTS of those six days cannot be correlated with the scientific account of what took place during the fourteen billion years… Genesis describes the birds as having been created on the fifth day, before the terrestrial animals that were crated on the sixth; and yet the fossil record shows that birds only appeared AFTER terrestrial animals.” (Pg. 183-185) He concludes, “The more reasonable conclusion is that Genesis was never intended to be a scientific text t begin with, but rather something more profound instead.” (Pg. 186)
He summarizes, “The concept of common ancestry is well-supported by evidence; it is preferable from the perspective that God works within His laws of nature wherever possible; there is much conceptual support for it from classical Jewish thought… Ramban and others explained that Genesis is not a literal account of creation. Several recent Torah scholars have explicitly noted that evolution… does not contradict the Toray, and others… thought that it had always been known.” (Pg. 275)
He suggests, “With so much at stake, we can understand why the Torah would not explicitly state that men physically evolved from animals. It was far more important for the Jewish People to be made aware of man’s fundamental difference from animals than his physical relationship to them…. Not every truth can be unleashed upon mankind at once, and the best development may require the temporary suppression of certain truths in order for more important ones to be adequately ingrained in the human psyche.” (Pg. 330)
He concludes, “the first three chapters of Genesis are, for the most part, speaking about the archetypical nature of man and his life in this world, rather than a historical account of a particular person’s life. While this view is far from mainstream n Orthodox Judaism today (at least as far as people are willing to openly discuss their views), it receives interesting discussion by Rabbi Avraham Yitzchak Kook… According to Rabbi Kook, while it is fitting for the account of Adam in the Garden of Eden to be historically true, it is not essential to religious belief. The important part of it is the lessons that the Torah teaches us. The purpose of Genesis is to teach us about the metaphysical and spiritual nature of the world, not its physical history.” (Pg. 342-343)
This book will be “must reading” for anyone studying Jewish perspectives on Science, Evolution, and interpretation of the Torah.
Rabbi Natan Slifkin wrote in the introductory section of this 2006 book, “This book is written for those who are committed to the tenets of Judaism, but also respect the modern scientific enterprise and are aware of its findings, and who are therefore disturbed by the challenges that are raised for their understanding of Torah. It addresses these challenges by following the approach of .. Maimonides and similar Torah scholars towards these issues, which, while firmly within the framework of authentic Orthodox Judaism, is not the method of choice in many segments of the ultra-Orthodox community. But many have found that no other approach works as well in solving these difficulties.”
He adds in the Introduction, “This book was written for several reasons. First, I discovered that none of the works currently available on Torah and science… comprehensively deal with the issues at hand… The sophisticated and critical reader seeking to find a rational basis for believing in a Creator is left dissatisfied by popular works on this subject. Another example is with the age and development of the universe… Jewish literature …generally deal with it in a superficial manner… Some books are quoting scientists completely out of context or are reprinting arguments from thirty years ago that have long been disproved… Most other books on Torah and science fall into two categories. One is the ‘rejectionist’ approach, which seeks to disprove the scientific theories that conflict with the simple understanding of Torah… this approach … is simply not satisfactory for most people who have a thorough grasp of modern science, and it causes Orthodox Judaism to lose intellectual credibility. Another is the ‘concordist’ approach, which accepts the findings of modern science and claims… that they are entirely consistent with the literal reading of the Torah… A further reason for compiling this work is that some highly valuable insights on the topic from important Jewish thinkers have not received public attention.” (Pg. 18-19)
After relating various evidences of ‘design’ in the universe, he observes, “one may wonder how atheists respond to such things. A common response if that the evidence is not extraordinary because there may be an infinite (or very large) number of universes. Thus, some of them are bound to be fortuitously arranged… The confusion here is over what precisely is amazing about the universe, and also over what the infinite-universe theory means… If one is referring to an infinite number of universes… which all have the same basic laws as ours… The complexity, the symmetry, and the beauty that we have described, would be present in all of these proposed universes. It is these that require a designer. The other proposal is that there are an infinite number of universes with an infinite number of systems of law. This would certainly mean that there must be some universes with fortuitous systems of law such as our own… However, the evidence for such a proposition… is precisely nil… Furthermore, on philosophical grounds, it seems more reasonable to propose that this universe was designed by a Creator than to propose that there are an infinite number of possible universes with an infinite number of possible scientific laws… Thus, mainstream science concedes that the universe if suspiciously fortuitous and that there is no independent evidence for multiple universes that would account for this.” (Pg. 53-55)
He acknowledges, “It is true that scientists are as human as everyone else and are prone to making mistakes and being influenced by personal bias. But most of the issues that concern us here---the development of the universe and of life---are well-supported by broad lines of evidence… and are not subject to the narrow perspective of a particular group… True, Rambam provided arguments against Aristotle’s eternal universe---but he was qualified to do so! One cannot compare Ramban’s rebuttal of Aristotle with the unconvincing and naïve ‘science’ of Biblical literalists today.” (Pg. 96)
He explains, “It is extremely important to bear in mind that the possibilities in interpreting Torah are not limited to literalism and allegory. Many types of interpretation do no fall neatly into either category… There is not black-and-white approach to literalism in the Torah. As with many topics, there have been heated debates regarding the extent of non-literal interpretation that it permitted.” (Pg. 103-104) Later, he adds, “There is a legitimate reason for being wary of non-literal understandings of the Torah, it that it puts one on a dangerous slippery slope. Where does one draw the line?... However, while this is reason to avoid non-literal explanations as much as possible, it is not reason to avoid them in limited circumstances where there are overwhelming grounds for accepting such explanations.” (Pg. 122)
He comments, “although there is basis for interpreting the word ‘day’ to refer to an ‘era,’ there is certainly no traditional precedent for explaining the six days of creation as referring to fourteen billion years. Historically, these were generally understood to be six regular 24-hour days… There are some traditional sources that interpret them as longer periods, but none in terms of billions of years. Yet this has not prevented people today from interpreting the word ‘day’ in this way.” (Pg. 129)
He notes, “A reservation voiced by some people is that many of the greatest Torah scholars today have not endorsed such views. However, this is not entirely accurate. While modern scientific cosmological explanations have not reached mainstream ‘official’ acceptance in some Orthodox circles, there have been important rabbinical figures who have legitimated reconciling these with Torah… Many Torah scholars privately endorse these approaches, even id they will not do so publicly due to the inability of much of the general public to accept it.” (Pg.131-132)
He argues, “asking ‘why create a fossil which appears to be a dead dinosaur if no such creature ever lived’ is a very reasonable and obvious question… Some claim that God might have implanted such a false history in order to test our faith in the truth of the Torah. First. although dinosaurs might have… become a test of faith for people… there are plenty of ways in which the age of dinosaurs is easily understood in light of the Torah. Second… the Torah’s description of Him indicates that He does not act in that way… The physical evidence contained in the world must reflect truth. Since God wrote the book of nature, everything in it must conform with the Torah; if it initially seems not to do so, we must check that both our understanding of the world and our understanding of Torah is correct.” (Pg. 159-160)
He explains, “the term ‘day’ can theoretically refer to more than one quantity of time. But what is its meaning in the context of the six days of creation? Simply speaking, the definition given in the Torah of one full period of light and darkness would mean a conventional day of twenty-four hours. Yet twenty-four hours is not really a definition, merely a different unit… The terms significance therefore requires the existence of the sun. But the sun was only created on the fourth day!... All this presents strong support for explaining the six days of creation as referring to six extended periods of time. The calendar begins less than six thousand years ago, but preceding it were six ‘days’ of Creation that lasted for billions of years. The legitimacy of using this approach to resolve the conflict between science and the Jewish calendar is widely (albeit not universally) accepted.” (Pg. 179-181)
He continues, “a substantial difficulty with any explanation that the six days are not six ordinary days is that the Torah does not only say that there were six days. Rather, the Torah also states that with each day ‘there was evening, and there was morning.’ It is difficult to imagine how this phrase could be interpreted if this does not refer to 24-hour periods on planet Earth… A more devastating problem with these approaches is that they simply do not solve the contradictions with science… although this approach reconciles the difference between a time span of six days and a time span of fourteen billion years, the EVENTS of those six days cannot be correlated with the scientific account of what took place during the fourteen billion years… Genesis describes the birds as having been created on the fifth day, before the terrestrial animals that were crated on the sixth; and yet the fossil record shows that birds only appeared AFTER terrestrial animals.” (Pg. 183-185) He concludes, “The more reasonable conclusion is that Genesis was never intended to be a scientific text t begin with, but rather something more profound instead.” (Pg. 186)
He summarizes, “The concept of common ancestry is well-supported by evidence; it is preferable from the perspective that God works within His laws of nature wherever possible; there is much conceptual support for it from classical Jewish thought… Ramban and others explained that Genesis is not a literal account of creation. Several recent Torah scholars have explicitly noted that evolution… does not contradict the Toray, and others… thought that it had always been known.” (Pg. 275)
He suggests, “With so much at stake, we can understand why the Torah would not explicitly state that men physically evolved from animals. It was far more important for the Jewish People to be made aware of man’s fundamental difference from animals than his physical relationship to them…. Not every truth can be unleashed upon mankind at once, and the best development may require the temporary suppression of certain truths in order for more important ones to be adequately ingrained in the human psyche.” (Pg. 330)
He concludes, “the first three chapters of Genesis are, for the most part, speaking about the archetypical nature of man and his life in this world, rather than a historical account of a particular person’s life. While this view is far from mainstream n Orthodox Judaism today (at least as far as people are willing to openly discuss their views), it receives interesting discussion by Rabbi Avraham Yitzchak Kook… According to Rabbi Kook, while it is fitting for the account of Adam in the Garden of Eden to be historically true, it is not essential to religious belief. The important part of it is the lessons that the Torah teaches us. The purpose of Genesis is to teach us about the metaphysical and spiritual nature of the world, not its physical history.” (Pg. 342-343)
This book will be “must reading” for anyone studying Jewish perspectives on Science, Evolution, and interpretation of the Torah.
September 27, 2017
This should be required reading for anyone interested in the confluence of science and Judaism. I was enthralled by Slifkin's direct use of secular and religious sources with a thorough analysis of each argument and how it may or may not be in conflict with various strains of thought. Also, the book is far from dry and answers questions about the Torah and evolution that I did not even realize I had! I cannot recommend this book enough to an audience that is searching for resolution to conflicts of religion and science.
March 30, 2023
Great read, very well written. I love the responses Slifkin gives to people that deny science and specifically these sciences. My favorite part was when Slifkin says along the lines of: If you believe Adam was created fully formed that means you believe Adam had a navel which is a scar from birth when detaching the umbilical cord. Furthermore, we have archeological evidence that Egyptians were living more than 5500 years ago and when the Jews entered Egypt and met the Egyptians that would mean if you believe the Earth is only around 5500 years old, all the memories and things built in Egypt at that time were created by God and the Egyptians had false memories of their grandparents, etc., my question to people that beleive the world is around 5500 years old, how do you know the world wasn't created 5 minutes ago, 30 seconds ago? All your memories and scars were just created now by God and everything you think you know is false. God doesn't create falsehoods!
The book is broken down into 3 parts. The 1/3 is explaining the beauty of science and how it helps prove God since it is so complex (you can argue there are infinite universes so one is bound to be as beautiful as the one we live in now, but we have no proof to this theory so there's no way to argue against it either).
The 2/3 part of the book is proof of the age of Earth and the Universe and how it fits in the Torah. And it's not what you might think!
The last third is how Evolution fits with the Torah. Don't expect an explanation for evolution in this book or many proofs of it, it just touches on the subject but most importantly fits it in with the Torah.
The book is broken down into 3 parts. The 1/3 is explaining the beauty of science and how it helps prove God since it is so complex (you can argue there are infinite universes so one is bound to be as beautiful as the one we live in now, but we have no proof to this theory so there's no way to argue against it either).
The 2/3 part of the book is proof of the age of Earth and the Universe and how it fits in the Torah. And it's not what you might think!
The last third is how Evolution fits with the Torah. Don't expect an explanation for evolution in this book or many proofs of it, it just touches on the subject but most importantly fits it in with the Torah.
February 19, 2014
Some impressive rhetoric, but seriously lacks rigor to account as a serious philosophy or even apologetics books. Still the best (and most honest to a degree) I've seen in the Judaism department. I hearty recommend you give it a read if you're interested in the subject.
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews