Literalism and Autism

[GrandizerII]

I don't see where in this text it suggests allegory. The bit about the Sabbath suggests to me otherwise. Which bit suggests allegory?

I guess we'd need some criteria to help us discern allegory or other non-literal readings from literal readings.

There are a few that come to mind right away:

~ historical knowledge of how texts were used in those days

Which, afaik, we don't have for "those days". At least not conclusive knowledge.

~ the fact that the authors, while lacking in scientific knowledge, weren't idiots. So they knew, for example, that what they were proposing was not empirically grounded.

You don't need to be an idiot to be ignorant of later scientific facts.

Also, how do you know what they knew? Even if the authors did know, they may have still intended the passages to be taken literally.

~ the fact that according to various theories about when and where these texts were edited together, there may well have been political and ethical motivations that were not about literal explanations of the earth's origins. 

Political and ethical motivations don't preclude the position that the texts were intended to be taken literally.

Why should the bit about the sabbath seem more literal to you? Isn't it possible that the sabbath is important for spiritual and moral reasons, and that therefore a myth to emphasize those aspects would be desirable at the time?

Of course it's possible. It's also possible that the myth was an attempt to explain why Jews kept the Sabbath on the seventh day by appealing to what happened in history.

But unless we have commentaries at the time explaining the point of these passages, or we have conclusive evidence that the passages were meant to be interpreted a specific way, we can't be too sure either way.