mnehring,
This certainly does not prove my point that we will use science when it is convenient to us and we will not when it is not (i.e. science proves the earth was not created in six days vs. the Resurrection of Christ was a miracle) but, i do believe that it show that the writer of Luke did believe that Adam was the first human as described in Genesis and therefore indicates that at least Luke (and there are many other examples) believe in some more literal translation than you seem to.
Luke 3:
23 When He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph, the son of Eli, 24 the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph, 25 the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos, the son of Nahum, the son of Hesli, the son of Naggai, 26 the son of Maath, the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein, the son of Josech, the son of Joda, 27 the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa, the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel, the son of Neri, 28 the son of Melchi, the son of Addi, the son of Cosam, the son of Elmadam, the son of Er, 29 the son of Joshua, the son of Eliezer, the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, 30 the son of Simeon, the son of Judah, the son of Joseph, the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim, 31 the son of Melea, the son of Menna, the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan, the son of David, 32 the son of Jesse, the son of Obed, the son of Boaz, the son of Salmon, the son of Nahshon, 33 the son of Amminadab, the son of Admin, the son of Ram, the son of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah, 34 the son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, the son of Terah, the son of Nahor, 35 the son of Serug, the son of Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of Heber, the son of Shelah, 36 the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech, 37 the son of MethuSelah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalaleel, the son of Cainan, 38 the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God
..and just to make one more point before I drop it, but Adam could easily translate in the same language as “mankind”, “man”, or even a city in Jordan. The root is from the Hebrew for “Red” of all things (example, Exd 25:5 when describing dying of a rams skin red is the same word used in Genesis for Adam). A man in the past, when translating, chose that this meant a literal name. Look in Strong’s at all the uses of #119 and you’ll be amazed at how many different translations a single Hebrew word is given. This doesn’t mean the Bible is wrong, but it does make you look at human’s interpenetration differently.. and it does make you critical of man’s view, especially when man says what God means.
If you believe man is flawed in what he studies in science, how much less of a chance is he flawed in telling you what God means?
I’m not saying buy what I am saying hook line and sinker or have faith in me, just the opposite- test it, test everything, especially those who claim to speak for God. You’ll be amazed how much God reveals Himself when you stop listening to what people say you should believe, and what you discover when you put those assumptions aside and start digging yourself.