Some people claim that Adam was a metaphor, because “Adam” just means “Man”. Thus, they argue, the Adam of Genesis isn’t intended to be a man, he is meant to represent all men, otherwise he would have a name like everyone else.
Is this a good critique? Nope.
God could call the first man Adam- or MAN- for the same reason those kids in the movie E.T. could call the alien “E.T.” Because when you have only one of something on the planet you don’t need to specify which one you’re talking about. God didn’t need to give Adam a different name anymore than those kids would’ve been all “We can’t just call him “E.T.”! How are we going to know which extraterrestrial we’re talking about? Let’s call him Steve. Steve is a pretty name…”
Had God called Adam “Steve,” then the human race would have been called “Steves,” or “Stevekind.” You name the collection that follows from the one which fathers them. This is why we have last names. At some point there was a first “Johnson,” who was the son of a man named John. We still do this today. Why would this make Adam mythological when the great-grandfather “John” of the Johnson family was a real man?
The reason we are all called “Mankind” and Adam was called simply “Man,” is because we are distinguishing our species. If he was Steve- we would all be “Stevekind”. Because he was Adam, we are Adamkind. Mankind. So when people try to argue that Genesis isn’t historical because Adam wasn’t Steve, you can know that they’ve failed to be down to earth and are really out of this world, if you catch my meaning.