Just read over the long thread about a letter to HQ regarding Noah's Flood. Reminded of another literal litmus test. Within 7 years of beginning telescopic observations of the heavens, Galileo was called to judgment by the Inquisition in 1616. Disputes in this case abound, but the Biblical arguments for which Galileo was tried and condemned "revolved" around I Chronicles 16:30, Psalms 93:1, 96:10, 104.5 and Ecclesiastes 1:5, summarized by "The world is established; it shall never be moved." Plus, "The sun rises and the goes down and hastens to where it rises." Elders believe this, don't they? After all, it is clearly written. Furthermore, we have the notable divine intervention following the battle against the five kings of Makkedah in which the Amorites found no surcease since Joshua said "Sun, stand still over Giberon, and moon, you too over the Vale of Aijalon... "Is that not written in the Book of the Just?" circa Joshua 10:13.
Galileo officially recanted his views. According to legend, it is claimed that he said otherwise under his breath. But the fact is, the text over which the dispute arose is not ambiguous. And that's the problem.
For in the case of ordering the sun and moon to stand still, most of their observed motion is based on that of the earth. The earth revolves; not the sun. And the apparent motion of the moon is largely that of the Earth's as well. I do not recall any mention in the Bible that either orb moves in the celestial sphere, disregarding whether the Earth is in motion or not. That information evidently was provided by other peoples. But the notion that the sun hastens under the ground to rise at its appointed hour is all wrong. At least to the modern perspective.
It is possible to split hairs and say that motion in space is relative. It's a matter of explaining the source of motion - and ancient peoples around the Mediterranean did not adhere to Newtonian or Relativistic principles of physics. There were no known forces acting at a distance such as Newton proposed - and Einstein later denied. Yet even though Einstein removes gravitational force as a mechanism for particle motion in the universe, Newton and Einstein still agree that interaction of bodies cause accelerations inversely proportional to their masses and contribute to their consequent velocities. I would not argue that God is unaware of that observed relation about the cosmos which we attribute to God's agency, but there is still that sticky problem of what is presumed in the collected works contemplating all this.
In an argument about literal interpretation, I brought up this matter, and my opposite, unaware of the particulars of the Galileo history, claimed that, of course the Earth moves and that these text passages did not suggest otherwise.
And, in heat of argument, that I was an atheist to suggest otherwise.
I don't think the literalists can have it both ways.
So the next time you have a debate about whether the literal word is true (e.g., such as a world-wide flood) try examining this issue too.