There is an obvious premise in your argument here - "if the creation account in ch. 1 is figurative, then Adam cannot be a literal person." Or else, "if Adam was a literal person, then Gen. 1 MUST be interpreted literally." I don't agree with your premise. There was time between the beginning and the creation of man, which your proof texts do not address.
There are some things about the Gen 1 account of a literal 6-day creation that contradict things about known science today, such as (not an exhaustive list):
1. There were 3 evening/morning days (24 hr periods - literal days) before the sun, moon, and stars were created
2. The light on day 1-3 had to have a different source than the sun, moon, and stars, which source does not exist today
3. Day and night were not governed by lights until the 4th day - so how do you get evening/morning the 1st 3 days
Then you have to somehow reconcile the YEC 6000 year old universe with evidences of long ages (100's of 1000's of years), such as observations of supernovas and ice core samples which accurately and mathematically put events in space and on earth at > 100,000 years. So then there are only a few possible conclusions we can arrive at, e.g. these two:
1. Gen. 1 is a scientific, historical, chronological account, and the scientific evidence we see is simply an illusion; then we have to take Gen. 1 literally with blind faith. (the YEC stand)
2. Gen. 1 is a figurative account of creation which has no scientific basis (its value is religious, not scientific). Therefore the "6 days" is about creation order, not about science. Then the scientific evidences about long ages of the universe and of earth can be accepted, as well as the archeological evidence of the existence of man which appears to be about 6000 years.
I happen to think that #2 is more reasonable.
![](images/smilies/smile.png)
TD