Examining Genesis...

Well, you choose not to trust Scripture when it clearly says that the earth was created out of water and by water. There is so much water in space. Remember water was separated to create the expansion of the universe. Is space unlimited? Who knows (hard to fathom), but according to the Bible at the "edges" of the universe you will hit water. How do scientist know that the universe isn't an expansion amidst great waters?

On that passage it is clear that no human can move earth. If earth is to be moved by someone, it would be done by God alone who established it. That is the message of that little text.

First, I think what you mean by "literal" is really "historical" i.e. actual events which have particular space-time coordinates in our universe.

(One should separate the meaning of "literal" from "historical". There is a literal meaning to everything said or written, but not necessarily a reference to history. Most prose fiction, for example, can be read literally i.e. the common sense meaning of the text is the intended meaning--there is no intention that the story be an allegory. But there is no intention that it be history either.)

But one cannot divide scripture up in such a way that you can say: everything up to here is not history and everything after here is history. Non-history intrudes into history in the bible from Genesis to Revelation---all the way through.

And there are huge gray areas where it could be (at least in part) history, probably is (in part) history, but not verified by evidence as history.

Consider even such an important figure as Moses, for example. It is pretty hard to imagine the history of Israel without him. And I, for one, don't doubt that Moses existed. But we have no evidence apart from the biblical stories that there ever was such a person, and a fair bit of evidence that suggests the stories are not entirely historical. Probably we are on firm ground in holding that Moses was probably an actual historical person, but also on firm ground holding that most of the stories about him are in part or in whole legendary.

Maybe there's no direct answer to your question. As gluadys and I have pointed out, you mischaracterized evolutionary creationism from the outset, so it's difficult to address your question in any meaningful way. It's like asking, "Have you stopped beating you wife?" Regardless, I took a good crack at it.
Now how about you? Where do you draw the line between interpreting Genesis literally and allegorically? Do you subscribe to a literal firmament with literal floodgates? Was Day 7 a literal day? Was the snake a literal snake? Did God literally create birds from water as it says in Genesis 1, or did He literally create them from dirt as it says in Genesis 2? Perhaps you could help shed some light on these issues and set us all straight.

So is the text true? Or does the earth move?

Surely there are answers to my simple question. One example would be: "I don't know." TEs were not even mentioned in the questions. Quit getting all hung up over how I did or didn't characterize TEs. By doing so, you're ignoring the questions themselves.

Literal firmament.

Literal day.

Literal serpent.

Earth created from water. Birds then created from the earth (this doesn't conflict with Gen 1 at all).

So how do you account for the Earth moving through space?

I'm sorry. I just thought you might first like to know what evolutionary creationists actually believe, as opposed to what you think we believe. Learning not to equate literalism with historicism is a lesson you'll first have to learn before you can understand where evolutionary creationists are coming from.

As gluadys just pointed out, a literal firmament is "a physical barrier between waters above it and waters below it." Job 37:18 describes it as " hard as a mirror of cast bronze" (even the literal meaning of the word "firmament" refers to hammered-out metal). You're certain that you believe the firmament is literally as the Bible describes it?

So you believe God is still at work creating? If so, then I'm with you.

So you don't think the serpent was Satan?

That's not a literal interpretation at all!

TEs argue that not all of Genesis is meant to be taken literally. How does one know which parts of Genesis to take literally and which parts to take figuratively? Where in Genesis does the metaphorical passages end and the literal passages begin?