I feel like it should also be pointed out that the guy in the post tries to use the story of Genesis as the basis for the concept of original sin. While this is an important Christian concept, that is not the point of Genesis at all and the Jews (you know, the people who were interpreting it long before Christianity existed...) didn't (and don't) see it that way.

To use the argument that Genesis is only meant to be used as an argument for original sin is totally bad religion; while the Christians use it as supporting evidence for original sin, it wasn't written with that interpretation in mind - ironically, he's trying to Christianize what was originally non-Christian literature... :)

Also, the Jews before and after Christianity were not at all opposed to interpreting the Bible less than literally and finding explanations for certain theological problems; Cryptic readings of the Torah are far from unheard of. For instance (since we're discussing Genesis) the idea that God created the universe in seven days is interpreted various ways by the Rabbis, including by suggesting that a "day" in the strictest sense can't be meant literally; Many Jews to this day see absolutely no problem theologically with the concept of evolution.

Another prominent non-Genesis example is the thrice stated rule of never seething a kid in it's mother's milk - the first, second and third time it's stated the rule might mean something completely different because the Rabbis believe that the Bible doesn't need to repeat itself.

So the idea of not reading the Bible literally or non-cryptically both predates and transcends Christianity itself and isn't some kind of double talk devised by modern Christians who are trying to rationalize something they "know" to be false, which is what this idiot seems to be implying...