Anyone who wishes to read On the Literal Meaning of Genesis may do so here:https://isidore.co/CalibreLibrary/Augustine,%20St_/On%20Genesis%20(5059)/On%20Genesis%20-%20Augustine,%20St_.pdf (It starts on page 160) Read it for yourselves and do not rely on quotes that distort its meaning.  It is not an exhortation to read Genesis in a literal way. On the contrary, it is at points critical of literal interpretations.

Thank you for your input.  My answers in bold.  

No he does not.  He referred to the earth as aquosa et globosa moles, that is, "a watery and spherical mass"

From his work De Genesi ad Litteram "On the Literal Meaning of Genesis":

cuм enim totam terram adhuc aqua tegeret, nihil impediebat ut aquosa et globosa moles ex una parte faceret diem lucis praesentia, ex alia noctem lucis absentia, quae in eam partem succederet a tempore vespertino, ex qua lux in aliam declinaret.

"Although water still covered all the earth, nothing was preventing the watery and spherical mass from having day on one side by the presence of light, and on the other side, night by the absence of light, that in the evening, darkness would pass to that side from which light would be turning to the other."

I find this is an example of people who see the word "globe" or in this case, "watery and spherical mass" and think it proves their case because they don't read in context.  Augustine is debunking the watery spherical mass promoted by the pagans because he believes the literal interpretation of scripture.  

You are misunderstanding this passage. In this passage, St. Augustine is answering the question "How did evening and morning follow each other in the first three days?"  This needs an explanation because the sun was not created until the fourth day and yet light was separated from darkness and there were days starting from the first day.

He is not debunking the globe but assuming its existence in order to answer the question. The primordial light (the sort of light that existed before the creation of the sun) could not have gone all the way around the earth because this would not allow for night.  He is not talking about the globe being stationary or moving, but about the primordial light being stationary or moving as it encircled the spherical earth.  Either way, there could be no night.

He then considers the possibility of the primordial light only shining on one side of the earth at a time, creating day and night as it circled around.  This could work because the earth was a watery globe.  This, therefore, is his solution to the question he posed.

We know Augustine is questioning the globe earth model because he's telling us to read scripture literally.  Hence, the title.  "On the Literal Meaning of Genesis."  Are you suggesting Augustine is telling us scripture describes a globe?  Scripture never does. Nor does such a thought work with the title on the literal meaning of Genesis.  It's already disturbing when pagans refuse to use the literal interpretation of scripture and pretend it doesn't say what it actually says. How much worse if Catholics do it?   

Again, in context it is very clear that he is not questioning the globe earth model. This statement comes from an answer to the question:  "As the water under heaven had first covered the whole earth, where did it recede to for the dry land to appear?"

You haven't proven Augustine was questioning the globe from literal interpretation.  Unless he is actually saying scripture describes a globe, which he doesn't even pretend to do.  Otherwise, he'd use a different title for his work.  In fact, he sums it all up saying it's obvious earth isn't a globe because water and fields are obviously level.    

 Perfect example

St. Augustine says: "They [the waters covering the earth] were not, surely, collected into a pile as happens on the threshing floor when the harvest that has been threshed is winnowed and then swept into a heap, and so lays bare the place it had been spread over and covered." This is what he refers to when he asks "Who would ever say such a thing?"  St. Augustine is making the obviously true observation that nobody would say such a thing of water because it always appears level. He is not commenting on the shape of the earth.

Augustine is complaining that water doesn't heap up to form a curve, which would happen if earth was a globe, because water surface is level.  Honestly, if Catholics refuse the literal, what else is there? Modernism? Francis? 

Nothing that you have said about St. Augustine's views is actually supported when one reads the quotes you cited in context.  There was nothing true in your entire post.

Augustine has been defending the literal meaning of scripture in this work and is showing the globe to be incompatible with scripture.    

Anyone who wishes to read On the Literal Meaning of Genesis may do so here:https://isidore.co/CalibreLibrary/Augustine,%20St_/On%20Genesis%20(5059)/On%20Genesis%20-%20Augustine,%20St_.pdf (It starts on page 160) Read it for yourselves and do not rely on quotes that distort its meaning.  It is not an exhortation to read Genesis in a literal way. On the contrary, it is at points critical of literal interpretations.

Anyone who wishes to read On the Literal Meaning of Genesis may do so here:https://isidore.co/CalibreLibrary/Augustine,%20St_/On%20Genesis%20(5059)/On%20Genesis%20-%20Augustine,%20St_.pdf (It starts on page 160) Read it for yourselves and do not rely on quotes that distort its meaning.  It is not an exhortation to read Genesis in a literal way. On the contrary, it is at points critical of literal interpretations.

Tradman, did you actually read the entire On the Literal Meaning of Genesis or do you base your understanding on isolated quotes?  I find it hard to believe that a person who had read the whole thing would misunderstand it as badly as you do.

Here is a passage in which St. Augustine is being explicitly critical of literal interpretation:

19. "And God said, 'Let there be light,' and the light was made." We ought to understand that God did not say, "Let there be light," by a sound brought forth from the lungs, or by the tongue and teeth. Such thoughts are those of carnal persons, and to be wise in accord with the flesh is death. "Let there be light," was spoken ineffably. One can ask whether what was spoken is the only-begotten Son. For what was spoken is called the Word of God by whom all things were made. Only let us banish the impiety of believing that the Word of God, the only-begotten Son, comes about like a sound uttered by us.

Tradman, did you actually read the entire On the Literal Meaning of Genesis or do you base your understanding on isolated quotes?  I find it hard to believe that a person who had read the whole thing would misunderstand it as badly as you do.

Here is a passage in which St. Augustine is being explicitly critical of literal interpretation:

19. "And God said, 'Let there be light,' and the light was made." We ought to understand that God did not say, "Let there be light," by a sound brought forth from the lungs, or by the tongue and teeth. Such thoughts are those of carnal persons, and to be wise in accord with the flesh is death. "Let there be light," was spoken ineffably. One can ask whether what was spoken is the only-begotten Son. For what was spoken is called the Word of God by whom all things were made. Only let us banish the impiety of believing that the Word of God, the only-begotten Son, comes about like a sound uttered by us.