She rejected faith out of hand as a means of coming to any conclusion, yet, there are things that require faith based on evidence, such as reaching a verdict in a jury trial.
We all use our 'faith' on a daily basis, based on what is reasonable.
We have faith our car will start in the morning, have faith that the lights go on when we hit a switch.
Christians have faith in God because the Bible is true and the evidence for that truth is overwhelming.
In the quote above, she defines her use of the word faith as "belief apart from reason,". Meaning, if there is a "reason" to believe something, that would not fall into the category of "faith" (either mystical or Biblical). It is not "faith" that your car will start in the morning. A working light switch is not a matter of faith.
If you do not like her specific definitions, that is fine. However, it makes no sense to apply your definition and still expect that she'd be saying the same thing. It is "blind faith" that she speaks about, always. To her, the "blind" part is redundant.
If you present "overwhelming evidence" of something, then the discussion can proceed via reason and logic -- faith would not be required in that situation.
On a different topic, here's something I recently re-read. Again, she makes the point of defining her terms at the very start. This is the begining an essay called, "The New Fascism: Rule By Consensus.":
“I shall begin by doing a very unpopular thing that does not fit today’s intellectual fashions and is, therefore, anti-consensus. I shall begin by defining my terms, so that you will know what I am talking about:
Let me give you the dictionary definitions of three political terms: socialism, fascism, and statism:
Socialism – a theory or system of social organization which advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production, capital, land, etc. in the community as a whole.
Fascism – a governmental system with strong centralized power, permitting no opposition or criticism, controlling all affairs of the nation (industrial, commercial, etc.).
Statism – the principle or policy of concentrating extensive economic, political, and related controls in the state, at the cost of individual liberty.
It is obvious that ‘statism’ is the wider, generic term, of which the other two are specific variants. It is also obvious that statism is the dominant political trend of our day. But which of the two variants represents the specific direction of that trend?
Observe that both “socialism” and “fascism” involve the issue of property rights. The right to property is the right of use and disposal. Observe the difference in those two theories: socialism negates private property rights altogether, and advocates “the vesting of ownership and control” in the community as a whole, i.e. in the state: fascism leaves ownership in the hands of private individuals, but transferscontrol of the property to the government.
Ownership without control is a contradiction in terms: it means “property” without the right to use it or to dispose of it. It means that the citizens retain the responsibility of holding property without any of its advantages: while the government acquires all the advantages without any of the responsibility.”
(Ayn Rand, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal 1965).
I think you have that exactly backwards. One believes the Bible on the authority of G-d, not G-d on the authority of the Bible. That would make the Bible a deity (G-d forbid!).