figurative interpretation? For the most he can do is establish that they are obliged to adopt figurative interpretation, and this much the claimant has already asserted in this book. Thus, this premise serves no purpose unless his opponent agrees with the figurative interpretations he has mentioned. Otherwise, he is requiring his opponent to accept figurative interpretation in both instances. At most, then, he is drawing an analogy between one disputed case and another, on the grounds that the proof applies in both.

Second: We have already shown that there is not one of these passages whose figurative interpretation is not rejected by some people. His claim is therefore invalid.

Third: The preceding discussion has made clear that there is not a single passage among them that requires figurative interpretation. Moreover, he has offered no proof for most of these interpretations.

Fourth: The many arguments presented above have made clear that none of these verses admits of figurative interpretation, let alone requires it.

Fifth: He claimed that figurative interpretation is unavoidable for some of the apparent meanings of