How do literalists envision the size of New Jerusalem?

Despite my not being a literalist in the sense of those who say the New Jerusalem on the New Earth will have the literal dimensions stated in Revelation 21:17, the question intrigued me enough to have a rummage in such a literalist site. Here are some quotes relevant to the question:

“If these dimensions are not literal, why does Scripture specifically give the dimensions and then say “by man’s measurement, which the angel was using” (Rev. 21:17). The emphasis on “man’s measurement” almost seems to be an appeal: “Please believe it—the city is really this big!” Suppose God wanted to convey that the city really is fourteen hundred miles wide and deep and high. What else would we expect Him to say besides what this passage says? Is it possible for God to make such a city? Obviously—He’s the creator of the universe. Is it possible for people in glorified bodies to dwell in such a city? Yes.

I have no problem believing that the numbers have symbolic value, with the multiples of twelve suggesting the perfection of God’s bride. However, most commentators act as if we must choose between literal dimensions and ones with symbolic significance. But we don’t. My wedding ring is a great symbol—but it’s also a real object.

Some argue, “But this city rises above the earth’s oxygen level.” Can’t God put oxygen fourteen hundred miles high on the New Earth if he wishes? Or can’t He make it so we don’t have to breathe oxygen? Such things are no problem for God… Some claim anything that big would weigh so much it would disrupt the earth’s orbit. Of course, the New Earth could be much bigger than the present one. In any case, issues of mass and gravity are child’s play to the Creator… Is it possible that the city’s dimensions aren’t literal? Of course. The doctrine of the New Earth certainly doesn’t stand or fall with the size of the New Jerusalem. However, my concern is this: If we assume the city’s dimensions can’t be real, people will likely believe the city isn’t real. If it doesn’t have its stated dimensions, then it’s a short step to believing it doesn’t have any dimensions at all. Then we think of the New Earth as not being a resurrected realm suited for resurrected people.” https://www.epm.org/blog/2019/Oct/14/new-jerusalem-literal-massive-city

Randy says he has invented a word – Christoplatonism – to refer to all those who have the ‘Christianized philosophy of Plato’ (and he’s written a book about those ones, who, he says, are contending against Scripture). He speaks of :

“...the secular philosophy of Plato that the material world is bad—it’s evil—and only the invisible, spiritual world is good. But then there were Christian church fathers who took up the ideas of Platonism and tried to read them into the Bible. They made the Bible appear to be condemning the physical material world.” https://www.epm.org/blog/2013/Jun/12/christoplatonism

I’m not sure if he goes on to use that valid point about one of the heresies that tried to creep into the church (but which was denounced) to claim that that’s why many Christians today reject a literal New Jerusalem of such immense dimensions on a literal New Earth. I don’t intend to read his book on that, or even to look at his video. On his web-page, he suggested that a New Earth could be so vastly greater in size to our present Earth, that the astronomical dimensions of the New Jerusalem coming down to the New Earth would perfectly accommodate such a literal structure.

What I read on his web-page was just to answer this question, with regard to one group. No doubt there are other groups saying similar things, or even giving different arguments to support such a literally ginormous structure, but I will not be investigating them. And, just for the record, I’m not a ‘Christoplatonist’!

Most literalists would hold to the historical-grammatical method of hermeneutics. This recognizes that there are different genres of literature present in the Bible, each requiring its own rules of interpretation. Prophetic and apocalyptic passages use hefty amounts of symbolism. We know that Revelation falls into this category because it tells us so.

As for the mystery of the seven stars that you saw in my right hand, and the seven golden lampstands, the seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands are the seven churches. (Revelation 1:20 ESV)

The above verse is not the only place where John informs us that the words are symbolic. In addition, Revelation uses symbolic phrases previously defined by the Apostles and Prophets. Thus locusts are invading armies, the sword in Jesus' mouth is the sword of the spirit, and horrific beasts are evil empires.

The presence of much symbolic language does not rule out the possibility that some statements are literal. Literalists debate over which is which. For example, in the eighties it was common to say that one of the plagues - the burning of the grass and trees - was an ecological catastrophe. However the Old Testament often compares grass and trees to people. Thus some later literalist commentators equate green grass to Christians and trees to churches, so the plague describes a genocide against Christians.

There is also the possibility of multiple fulfilment of prophesy. The words may apply symbolically to one era but literally to another. We do not have enough information. The best posture is to admit uncertainty. God can create a literal city as described but it may signify something else that cannot be described in words.

However, by appeal to symmetry, the Bible begins with a literal description of God's miraculous creation before reaching its symbolic, prophetic content. It would be fitting if the predominantly symbolic words of Revelation stop before the final two chapters. That would make the description of the New Jerusalem both symbolic and literal. It is because of this and other such reasoning that people who read Revelation as mostly symbolic still hold to that city as drawn in precise proportion to God's final plan.