Where does literalism end and interpretation begin?

I'm inclined to agree with Christian on this one. Here is a site on history of beliefs about the heart.Our modern understanding of the heart as a pump dates from the 17th century and the work of William Harvey.The argument of the OP makes a good case that the Bible is not a science text book addressed to a modern audience. However, I don't see it making a case on literalism. Literalists are entitled to go by what the word "Heart" meant in ancient times. We may take such meanings as metaphorical, but they were not too far from what was accepted as the literal meaning at that time.

No, that's absurd.The Adam & Eve story, the Noah story, the Jonah story all read as fables. If there were neon lights saying "fable" it wouldn't any clearer than it already is. If they were to read such stories in anything other than the Bible, people would have no difficulty in recognizing these as fables.On a plain straightforward reading of the Bible, these stories would be accepted as fables, not as literal history.The reason that some people take these stories as literal, is that they have been indoctrinated into the non-biblical theology of original sin, and they find it difficult to make a case for original sin if the stories are fables.

Lets see:

magical trees;

it makes no sense for God to create the tree of knowledge of good and evil, if Adam was not supposed to eat of that tree;

the talking serpent;

God lied ("thou shalt surely die") and the serpent told the truth;

the flaming sword that turned every way - surely the creator could just have the tree of life die and its fruit shrivel up and become useless;

​

You just can't abide talking snakes as a possible reality, ...

As history, it makes no sense whatsoever. As a fable it makes perfect sense (a "Just So" story on the human condition and what distinguishes us from other animals).

​

Faith's idea of God: a liar and incompetent bungling fool.
My idea of God: one who gave us brains and intended us to use them.