Literal interpretation comes in handy at times to prove presuppositions like six literal days of creation, but it doesn't even support that or instantaneous creation. Good people have been scared out of their senses by the thought that the first three chapters of Genesis might be an allegorical or figurative account of creation intended simply to present God as the Almighty Creator. They have made a certain, theoretical how of creationa matter of scienceinto a tenet of faith essential to salvation. There is continued search for reasons and defenses to uphold the literal concept which shuns evidence on the other side. Let me ask some questions and make observations about the Genesis account which challenge the literal concept.
Many creatures are carnivorous.
If they were created herbivorous, then God continued to form their bodies, digestive systems, teeth, instincts, etc. after the fall. Man was to eat of the garden. The cooling of the earth and condensing of moisture to permit light, clouds, and rain on the earth's surface surely took more than twenty-four hours. So would the draining of the water from the continents. In Eden stood the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.