All of this is not the issue and a useless smoke screen, because I am being very specific as to what the understanding of the authors was based on literally what they actually wrote without ambiguity sense I was very specific
Yet others reject the idea that your quotes were "unambiguous" and your assumption that the only way someone can make an intertextual reference to another story is that they believe it literally true.
You have assumed a reference to Adam, Flood, etc.
can only be interpreted as an endorsement of the literal truth of that event. This is obviously false.
How to interpret an intertextual reference requires you to consider genre, historical and cultural context, etc. yet you have deemed these "off topic".
What genre were the Gospels? What was their purpose? In the ancient world, when people wrote history, what was their primary concern: objective reporting of fact or using the past to construct a narrative pertinent to the present? Was there a difference between recent history and primordial history in the minds of people?
I have not made any dogmatic assertions. I am making an argument based on the plain literal understanding of the text,
And therein lies the rub...
You have assumed an anachronistic methodology of interpreting the Bible in a naive, literalist manner and mistake it for being "objective".
Hundreds of millions of Christians over the millennia would consider your logic flawed, and heretical as they did Philo.
Hundreds of millions of Christians would consider yours flawed too, including the Catholic and Orthodox Churches from the very beginning of their existences.