If the very first verse of Genesis, which speaks of the "heavens and the earth" as having a "beginning", is to be taken, according to you, "literally", then why would the account suddenly switch to "symbolism" with the next verse?
As for the Genesis account speaking of a "beginning", had you looked up designs' comment above, you would have found that the Sumerian creation myth ALSO speaks of a "beginning" - and the Sumerian myth is MUCH older than that of Genesis...
From the website: http://faculty.gvsu.edu/websterm/SumerianMyth.htm
"The Sumerian Creation
Only one account of the Sumerian creation has survived, but it is a suggestive one. This account functions as an introduction to the story of "The Huluppu-Tree" (Wolkstein 4).
In the first days when everything needed was brought into being,
In the first days when everything needed was properly nourished,
When bread was baked in the shrines of the land,
And bread was tasted in the homes of the land,
When heaven had moved away from the earth,
And earth had separated from heaven,
And the name of man was fixed;
When the Sky God, An, had carried off the heavens,
And the Air God, Enlil, had carried off the earth . . . (Wolkstein 4)
"An" the male sky god and "Ki" the female earth were separated by Enlil, their son and later the chief god of the pantheon. Enlil thus carries off his mother the earth, taking his father's place in a manner somewhat similar to the way Kronos, in a much later story, usurped his father's (Ouranos') power. But where did heaven (An) and earth (Ki) come from, you may ask? According to another text, it was Nammu, the sea, "the mother, who gave birth to heaven and earth"..."