Parts of Genesis can be taken figuratively, parts cannot, Adam is one of the features that cannot. I know you knew that.
Sure I know that. What I am wondering is why you tried to suggest I was being dishonest talking about church fathers interpreting Genesis figuratively when you knew there were church fathers who interpreted the days of Genesis figuratively. I have discussed their interpretation of the Genesis days with Vossler before. Mallon even linked to a page describing the interpretation of the days of Genesis throughout church history. So why would you quote church fathers about talking about Adam as if that contradicted what I said?
I wonder how many times this false interpretation of Romans 5 has to be refuted:
Because the King James Bible translates tupos (G5179 τύπος

as 'figure' some folks thinks it means that Adam is a figure of speech.
What 'folks' are these who think Adam is a figure of speech? You used to keep claiming I said that, though I told you again and again that I didn't. You accused GratiaCorpusChristi of the same thing and he told you in no uncertain terms that he didn't. Now it is a vague 'some folks' who think it. Who are they Mark? As far as I can tell this whole 'Adam is a figure of speech' claim is a figment of your imagination.
Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. (Romans 5:14)
This is not how that word is used in the original. The word actually means:
From G5180; a die (as struck), that is, (by implication) a stamp or scar; by analogy a shape, that is, a statue,
(figuratively) style or resemblance; specifically a sampler (“type”

, that is, a
model (for imitation) or instance (for warning) (Strong's Exhaustive Concordance)
Strong's is much too brief to understand the wide range of uses of
tupos. Here are some of the explanation given by Gingrich & Danker
The most common translation is type, though that gets confused by much later rules of 'typology'. The second most common translation is figure which expresses the non literal way Paul is interpreting Adam without suggest Paul was talking about rules of typology thought up by scholars centuries later.
This is how the word is used in other passages:
tupoi
1 Cor 10:6, here it means literal idolaters are examples of what not to do.
1 Cor 10:11, here it means literal people who murmured, same meaning.
1 Pe 5:3, here it means literal leaders of the church are examples not Lords.
tupon
John 20:25, Here it means the literal print of the nail in Jesus hand.
John 20:25, Here it means the same thing.
Acts 7:44, Here it means a literal pattern.
Acts 23:25, Here it means the manner in which a letter is literally written.
Rom 6:17, Here it means a literal doctrine.
Php 3:17, Here it means a literal Paul and his companions.
2 Th 3:9, Same meaning here.
Titus 2:7, Here it means a literal pattern of good works.
Heb 8:5, Here is means literal Christians.
tupoV
Rom 5:14, Here it means a literal Adam
1 Ti 4:12 Here it means the literal Timothy be an example to others.
tupouV
Acts 7:43, here it means a literal idol, that represents a pagan god.
1 Th 1:7, here it means that literal believers are to be examples to other believers.
We discussed the same list in the thread
Adam and Eve-> to creationists
Your supposed refutation of Romans 5:14 didn't stand up to scrutiny then.
Lets look at my reply and how you responded.
Assyrian I think you are mixing up a wide range of different meanings of the word tupos, nail prints, stamped out metal idols, forms of teaching and Christians being good examples are hardly typological interpretations. For that you need to look at passages like 1Pet 3:21 where Noah's Ark is seen as a symbolic picture of baptism, or Hebrews 8:5 and 9:24 where the OT law and the tabernacle's real meaning was as a symbolic representation of Jesus Christ his sacrifice and high priesthood in heaven. Hebrews uses terms like type, antitype, shadow, and parable (Heb 9:9) to describe how the OT law was a symbolic picture of Christ. Of course this is a theme that runs throughout the NT whether the word type is used or not, we see it in John the Baptist's description of Jesus as the lamb of God, or Paul describing the sabbaths and festivals as shadows whose reality is in Christ.
Mark The literal tabernacle was used as a typology for Christ, the literal Flood for the baptism that now saves us, the literal priesthood and the other allusions find their meaning in the person and work of Christ. Moses, Melchizedek, David and Abraham are all figures like Christ, that does not make them figures of speech. Your insistence on twisting the originally intended meaning of vital texts is staggering.
Assyrian: There are two issues you are mixing up here. The comparison of the tabernacle, the flood, passover lamb with the NT are figurative. Your hiding behind 'figure of speech' to ignore the highly symbolic and allegorical way these OT pictures are being interpreted in the NT only shows how shallow your argument is.
The second issue is the historicity of the OT pictures. I have no problem saying a historical flood or a historical passover lamb are used as figurative pictures of baptism and Christ. But that doesn't say all types in the NT have to be historical. There is nothing in the NT, or in the 1st and 2nd century use of type to suggest that.
You are conflating the two issues with your 'figure of speech' rhetoric.
Mark... no reply
Paul also makes mention of Adam in his first letter to the Corinthians. There is no indication that Paul is speaking figuratively of Adam:
For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. (1 Corinthians 15:22)
So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. (1 Corinthians 15:45)
If Paul is describing Adam as a historical figure, why do you think he uses the present tense 'all die'? Surely if we died in a historical individual it happened in the past?
I get why you might think 'the first man Adam' means Paul is talking about the very first man. But if you read on just two verses you find Paul describing Jesus as 'the second man' 1Cor 15:47
The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. Wasn't the second man Cain? Interpreting Genesis literally anyway? Paul is not talking literal history here, any more than he was when he describe how we all die in Adam. What he is doing is comparing Adam and Christ and we know from Romans that Paul saw Adam as a figurative picture of Christ. Do you really need Paul to spell it out again for you? The very fact Paul is comparing Adam and Christ here should have you looking to see if he is talking figuratively.
Philo of Alexandria
Allegorical Interpretation 2.7.19
"'And God brought a trance upon Adam, and he fell asleep; and He took one of his sides' (Genesis 2:21) and what follows. These words in their literal sense are of the nature of a myth [mythodes]. For how could anyone admit that a woman, or a human being at all, came into existence out of a man's side?"
Allegorical Interpretation I Part 2.31.97
And the recommendations that he addresses to him are as follows: "Of every tree that is in the Paradise thou mayest freely Eat." He exhorts the soul of man to derive advantage not from one tree alone nor from one single virtue, but from all the virtues; for eating is a symbol of the nourishment of the soul, and the soul is nourished by the reception of good things, and by the doing of praiseworthy actions.
On the Creation 56.154
And these statements appear to me to be dictated by a philosophy which is symbolical rather than strictly accurate. For no trees of life or of knowledge have ever at any previous time appeared upon the earth, nor is it likely that any will appear hereafter. But I rather conceive that Moses was speaking in an allegorical spirit, intending by his paradise to intimate the dominant character of the soul, which is full of innumerable opinions as this figurative paradise was of trees. And by the tree of life he was shadowing out the greatest of the virtues namely, piety towards the gods, by means of which the soul is made immortal; and by the tree which had the knowledge of good an evil, he was intimating that wisdom and moderation, by means of which things, contrary in their nature to one another, are distinguished.
Josephus
Antiquities of the Jews Preface 4
I exhort, therefore, my readers to examine this whole undertaking in that view; for thereby it will appear to them, that there is nothing therein disagreeable either to the majesty of God, or to his love to mankind; for all things have here a reference to the nature of the universe; while our legislator [Moses] speaks some things wisely, but enigmatically, and others under a decent allegory, but still explains such things as required a direct explication plainly and expressly. However, those that have a mind to know the reasons of every thing, may find here a very curious philosophical theory, which I now indeed shall wave the explication of; but if God afford me time for it, I will set about writing it after I have finished the present work. I shall now betake myself to the history before me, after I have first mentioned what Moses says of the creation of the world, which I find described in the sacred books after the manner following.
Antiquities of the Jews Book 1.1.2
Moreover, Moses, after the seventh day was over begins to talk philosophically; and concerning the formation of man, says thus: : That God took dust from the ground, and formed man, and inserted in him a spirit and a soul.