If Jesus referred to Noah (he did) Jonah (he did) and Adam and Eve (he did) as real people, then we best not try to treat those stories as anything other than the LITERAL truth.
I agree. I also think that point #8 was actually a unique point. The others were basically the same point. He's concerned with pastors who are phonies rather than real. I really hesitate at using his word distinction "literarily" and treating the Bible as literature. Should a letter be viewed as a letter? Sure. But the truth is that very little of the message within the letter is constrained in any way by virtue of that letter being a "letter".
Other so-called forms of literature are contrived...apocalyptic literature is the most glaring example. Basically, that's just a fancy term in which egg-heads try to group such unique books as Daniel, Zechariah, and Revelation. They certainly have some similarities, but I seriously doubt Daniel said to himself, "Self, let's sit down and write an addition to the apocalyptic genre of literature."
I'm fairly sure you can't take the Psalms and Proverbs and legitimately group them in a folder you've named "poetics". All of those groupings are after-the-fact and contrivances of scholars.
As for the remainder of the author's concerns, to the extent that he really is concerned with phoniness and then adequately hits the mark in his description, I'll go ahead and listen.
Sometimes, though, I think people write things just to write things because they have a deadline, a requirement to put out so many words for a column, a blog, etc.
Or perhaps to have ten items on a checklist when you can only legitimately think of 9.
Item number 8 just really is (to put it "literarily"): One of those is not like the others.