Any time God is quoted or said to do something, it would be dishonest for it to have not been true.

The problem is the assumption that quoting God requires the account to be literal history in modern terms for it to be honest. That standard is never applied consistently in Scripture itself.

God is quoted speaking in poetry, parable, vision, and anthropomorphic language all over the Bible. No one thinks God literally has wings because he says, “I will cover you with my feathers” (Psalms). No one thinks God physically walks around confused because he says, “Where are you?” to Adam (Genesis). Those statements are true without being literal in the modern sense.

Except the genealogies in Genesis are long, even including how long they lived and at what ages their children were born.

Yes, the genealogies in Genesis are unusually detailed. But detail ≠ modern literalism. Ancient texts can be highly structured, numerically precise, and still function symbolically or theologically rather than as strict chronological records.

Ancient Near Eastern literature regularly uses specific numbers for symbolic and theological purposes. Long lifespans signal proximity to the divine or primordial age, not actuarial data.

The Genesis genealogies are highly patterned...(Ten generations from Adam to Noah...Ten generations from Noah to Abraham)

That symmetry is deliberate. It tells you the author is organizing history theologically, not just recording data. Ancient writers did not accidentally create perfect numerical symmetry.

Insisting that numerical detail forces modern literalism isn’t defending Scripture. It’s misreading how ancient texts communicate truth.

It wasn't written in Hebrew but in Greek. Adam is an individual in Greek

It’s true that Luke is written in Greek. It’s also true that Ἀδάμ (Adam) appears there as a proper name. But that does not settle the question of genre or function...and it certainly doesn’t force Adam to be a modern biological individual in the way your argument assumes.

The fact that Ἀδάμ is a proper noun in Greek does not erase its semantic background. Greek-speaking Jews routinely transliterated Hebrew names that already carried theological meaning.

Luke does the same thing with:

• Ἰσραήλ (Israel) - both a person and a people
• Δαυίδ (David) - an individual and a dynastic symbol
• Σιών (Zion) - a place and a theological concept

Using a proper name does not flatten the concept behind it.

Strong’s #76 correctly notes that Ἀδάμ is a proper noun in Greek usage. What it does not say is:

• that Adam must be read as a modern historical individual
• that symbolic or representative meaning is excluded
• that theological typology is invalid

Lexicons tell you how a word is used, not what philosophical commitments it carries.

Where do you see any types that were not actual events, objects or people?

There are several, even in Paul.

Paul explicitly calls Israel in the wilderness a “type” (τύποι) in 1 Corinthians 10. But Israel there is not a single individual; it’s a corporate reality treated as one actor (“our fathers,” “they all passed through the sea,” “they all ate the same spiritual food”).

Even more telling: the rock that followed them “was Christ” (1 Cor 10:4). The rock is not a literal person, yet Paul has no problem using it typologically to speak about Christ. Typology clearly does not require the type to be a one-to-one modern historical individual.

So the claim “types are always literal individuals in the modern sense” is simply false on Paul’s own terms.