While several other answers have argued for or against a particular hermeneutic approach, I do not believe that anyone has answered the question "What hermeneutical approaches lead to a literal interpretation of Genesis"
As far as I am aware, there are only 3 categories of interpretation:
Of these three approaches, only Young Earth Creationism and the Framework View supports a literal interpretation.
Young Earth Creationism
The are two main issue in Young Earth Creationism. The first has to do with the age of the earth, while the second has to do with Archeology/Palentology and the Fossil Record. The Young Earth Creationist viewpoint adheres very strictly to the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy which states
We affirm that Scripture, having been given by divine inspiration, is infallible, so that, far from misleading us, it is true and reliable in all the matters it addresses. We deny that it is possible for the Bible to be at the same time infallible and errant in its assertions. Infallibility and inerrancy may be distinguished, but not separated.
We affirm that Scripture in its entirety is inerrant, being free from all falsehood, fraud or deceit.
We deny that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science. We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood.
Because the genealogies given throughout scripture indicate that the earth is between 6,000 and 10,000 and the fact that all animals were created at the same time according to scripture, you have a conflict and collision with scientific consensus which believes the earth is 4.5 billion years old and different species of animals appeared over time. Because of this, you are basically left with 3 options:
- Scientific consensus is wrong
- Scripture is wrong
- The Chicago Statement is wrong
Young Earth Creationists generally come to the first conclusion.
The Framework View
The Framework View of Genesis holds that Genesis is nothing more or less than a Literary Framework which allows the author(s) of Gensis to communicate theological truths through narrative. Framework View proponents note that Creation is generally divided into two sections where Genesis 1 appears to have a semi-poetic structure and appears to be a prologue for the book of Genesis (Wenham, Genesis 1-15; Word Biblical Commentary, Pg 37), while Genesis 2 is pure theological narrative like the rest of the book. This means that Genesis 1 acts as a summary to Genesis 2-3. Framework View proponents also note that the days of creation can be divided into triads where days 1-3 correspond to days 4-6. There are also several other literary structural points of interest like those noted by Wenham (Pages 45-51)
This literary scaffolding then provides a structure which invites a polemic comparison which acts as a corrective response to other [ancient creation myths].(What are the similarities and differences between the Genesis creation account and other creation stories of the time) This comparison demonstrates the superiority of the Jewish God Yahweh over all of the other gods of the Levant according to the Framework View.
This results in some interesting features. As a literary scaffold, the Framework View can actually support multiple Hermeneutic Approaches. For example, nothing about the above precludes the text of Genesis from being a journal or news report of creation. Nothing about the Framework prohibits the use of the Bible as a science textbook and the Young Earth Creationist interpretation can fit within the Literary Framework.
At the same time, this Framework is also capable of supporting an Old Earth Creation model. The Day-Age, Gap models and Theistic Evolutionary models can all fit within the Literary Framework. The Framework can also contain allegory, fable or metaphor. But this still not the most interesting feature of the model. By far, what is most interesting about the Literary Framework View is that it allows for a blending of features and attributes of both Young Earth Creationist thoughts and Old Earth Creationist thoughts which results in something new altogether. And even this can still support a literal interpretation.
To understand what I mean, a distinction must first be made as to what exactly "literal interpretation" means. There are two ways to define this. The first is to say that "literal interpretation" means "the way it actually happened" while the second would mean "the way the author(s) of Genesis believed it happened".
For example the Enlightenment has proved that the earth is round. Despite this, most scholars do not believe that biblical authors thought the world to be round, but instead, it is thought that they believed that the earth was flat. If this is true, then the Enlightenment proves even if biblical authors thought the world was flat and intended scripture to literally say that, our faith can still be true and meaningful. If we accept that, we would still interpret scripture literally - not literally as the way things are, but literally they way authors thought them to be.
While the Framework View allows a blending of the strengths of the Old Earth and Young Earth Creation models, it is not and attempt to blend these models. The Framework View simply attempts to approach the text without preconception or agenda.
With the Young Earth Creationist literary approach, where the exegete is unable to cast doubt on science (such as the fossil record and age of the earth) the exegete must find a way to read the text in a manner which at least attempts to conform with that which is incontrovertible within science (eg, that the earth is round and the solar system heliocentric) but in order to do so the exegete is not engaging exegesis (reading meaning out of the text) but is instead engaging in eisegesis (reading meaning into the text) by virtue of the assumption that The Bible was written by authors with a secret and privileged knowledge of helocentricism which all other cultures of the time lacked.
Likewise, with the Old Earth Creationist Literary interpretation, the exegete must read scripture under the assumption that scripture must somehow speak of Evolution and that days must not really mean days, but must be some euphemism, slang or colloquial saying. Where the Young Earth Creationist is attempting to fit scripture into science, the Old Earth Creationist is attempting to fit science into scripture and engaging in eisegesis as well. Another option for the Old Earth Creationist is to claim that the creation story is purely allegorical fable, using metaphor to teach a lesson. This however risks the eisegesis inherent in the Young Earth Creationist's age-old critique that it allows readers to read the creation story as you would view modern art where the meaning is in the eye of the beholder and subject no absolute meaning or truth.
On the other hand, The Framework View attempts to discard all modern knowledge about cosmology and the age of the earth and approaches the text without agendas like the above and simply attempts to ask what the author intended to communicate to the reader. It is unencumbered by a need to fit modern knowledge into an ancient text. The Framework View does attempt to investigate the genre of the creation account(s), but only so that it can be better informed regarding the message and intention of the author. It genuinely doesn't care if the text is or is not allegory, fable, journalism, metaphor, high prose, poetry, prologue, theological narrative or anything else and attempts to evaluate the genre of the text purely based on the merits and feel of the text without preconception or prejudice.
This typically results in a view in which Genesis 2:4 and onward are regarded as the same genre to be interpreted in a prima facie (literal) manner. There is debate about the nature Genesis 1:1-2:4, but most regard it as a prologue which is something between prose and poetry (similar to Shakespeare who's plays are not quite prose due to the use of Iambic pentameter, yet cannot accurately be described as poetry either).
At the same time, most proponents of the Framework View also accept the idea that the age of the earth is 4.5 billion years (or so) old. It simply does not matter to the Framework View if the details are wrong because the text and author intends to tell us about the theological significance of creation and what that tells us about mankind's relationship to the creator.
Obviously, where the Framework View comes crashing down to earth from the lofty goal of being without agenda is in the doctrine of inerrancy. In order for one to adhere to the Framework View, one must be willing and able to dispense with the Chicago statement's claim that scripture never makes any mistake ever. The Framework View does not need to dispense with the idea of infallibility, only inerrancy. The point of the story (infallibility) can be true even if the details are wrong (inerrancy). God can still be creator, have created out of love and have given man a companion even if the bible is not without error according to the Framework View. Mankind can still be sinful and fallen and disobedient to Gods plan even if God used evolution and 4.5 billion years to bring this about, but this can all be a hard leap for many outside of the Framework View to make. Many are not willing to accept the idea that while God may be infallible and inerrant, perhaps the text and the people who recorded it weren't inerrant and might be humans capable of mistake. This is typically due to the doctrine of inerrancy. Most people believe it has ramifications for their faith in that it can mean nearly anything in scripture might not be "true" which could undermine the authority of The Bible and therefore their faith. Most of those who hold the Framework View however would point out that it does not undermine all of scripture, just the text of Genesis at most and say that each book of The Bible should be independently assessed on each of its' own merits.