From a Fundamentalist viewpoint, what does it mean to "take the Bible literally"?

In my previous answer on this question, while discussing Biblical Inerrancy, I stated: > The doctrine of inerrancy does not imply hyper-literalism. As noted > above, in the second possible mechanism for Biblical Inspiration, we > believe that God allowed the writer's literary style to be used in the > writing of Scripture. Hyperbole (the use of exaggeration as a figure > of speech. Example, "I'm so hungry, I could eat a horse.") is allowed. This is not necessarily a Fundamentalist belief. In an article at cathtruth.com (A Catholic site) we read: > Since at times our data are only what we find in the Bible, we lack > the necessary information to reconstruct a given incident with all its > details. Occasionally the Bible embodies hyperboles, allegories, > parables, etc. Detractors love to claim that you can't have it both ways – that you can't claim to take the Bible literally, and then decide that parts of it are allegorical. (I've made the same statement myself in a discussion on creation/evolution.) The charge leveled both *at* me and *by* me was the same: "**You can't just choose which parts of Scripture you want to believe and assume the other parts are allegorical. that opens it up to claim that *anything* you don't like in Scripture is allegorical.**" So, are there practical, accepted, time-honored guidelines for determining which parts of Scripture to take literally? Traditionally, **what are the hermeneutic rules applied to Biblical Literalism**, and **how does "Biblical Literalism" relate to Fundamentalist doctrine**?