If you ask any literalist Christian for their 'proof verse' on Mr D, they will invariably proffer the following from Isaiah 14:12:
O morning star, son of the dawn!
You have been cast down to the earth,
you who once laid low the nations!
This is from the original Hebrew btw where 'Son of the Morning' is used as a synonym for the name 'Lucifer'. Some later translations use 'Lucifer' interchangeably but this is a massive problem because Lucifer is a purely Latin word and Isaiah was written before the development of Latin - actually it is a smoking gun for Biblical tampering but that's not the main whammy.....
All Christians agree that Lucifer is the 'Morning Star'. But what then are we to make of this from Revelation 22:16:
So Jesus is the Morning Star???? As well as Lucifer, instead of, or are they both the same?
Again, Peter weighs in at 2 Peter 1:19:
What's going on here and who cares? Well there's an important point - this is not bashing - it is that literalism cannot be true.
Those who insist on a literal interpretation of the Bible must accept that Jesus is Lucifer - something that cannot be true as it undermines the Bible itself - ergo: literalism is anti-Biblical and the Bible must be symbolic. Moreover - it proves that the symbols are used interchangeably and re-used in different contexts: ie it is not absolutist.
This kind of method can equally be applied to the Qur'an (I don't apply it here because a) it would play into the hands of the Islamophobes and b) very few people here are interested in the Qur'an anyway) and I would argue that it is a potential method of defeating extremism and religious literalism (aka fundamentalism) wherever they arise whether in Islam or Christianity, government or in popular movements.
We discussed this once before where Imams in Yemen challenged Jihadis to a religious debate with the winner accepting the other side's view - the Jihadis always lost (can't find the link) but, more importantly, they reformed! Yemen now has virtually solved their Jihadi problem.
We need something like this now - not just in terms of religion but right across the board: a rebirth of philosophical debate and the methods of critical thought.
Unfortunately to prepare the way for that foundation the literalists have to go.