A lot of these topics tend to boil down to what it means to be inspired by God, versus questions of what God intended to reveal or teach to people over time.
All scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, but then what does that mean when we reach a point where we start reading about a solid dome in the sky?
And whether the concept in question is observed in the old testament or the new testament, the challenge there generally remains the same. Was it God’s intent to teach certain scientific concepts in inspiring His prophets? Or was it the intent of prophets to speak on concepts of science that might challenge a 21st century biologist?
I would say that one of the easiest ways to work with these kinds of passages is to simply understand that scripture was written for us but not necessarily to us, and we shouldn’t really expect some things to make sense when perceived or interpreted through a modern or concordist 21st century scientific perspective.
When Genesis 1 describes 7 days of creation with mankind created on day 6 and other life created in earlier days, but then Genesis 2 puts us in a spin describing Adam being lonely and God forming animals out of the ground and bringing them to Adam to name to find a suitable helper, all as having occurred in a single day (Genesis 2:4-18), we might find ourselves confused about Adam and Eve was even created before or after animals. Or we might be challenged about whether creation happened in one day or 7, or how a human could be made from the side of another human etc. Etc.
When Genesis describes windows in the raqia that open and close to let water through, or when Job describes the sky as being like brass or molten metal etc.
Some things really only make sense when perceived in an ancient near east perspective. While to modern 21st century people of a material scientific perspective, these ideas aren’t going to make much sense to us. Hence why we continually are stumbling while reading Genesis and any NT versus on these types of topics.
And so, The easiest way to process these questions is to simply know upfront that people of the ancient near East had a different perspective on a lot of these topics, and if they don’t make sense, that’s okay. Because from our modern day scientific perspective, we shouldn’t really expect it to make much sense. And it’s only when we re orient our perspective that we can begin making sense of ANE cosmology and the origins of mankind.
And with that said, in an effort to answer the question more directly, some biblical scholars such as John Walton, have proposed that Adam is an archetype representative of mankind. It’s a theological truth described by Paul. But Paul wasn’t really using ancient near east texts to try to understand scientific concepts, that wasn’t really his goal, and so it doesn’t make much sense to try to hold his words in that kind of light, as if he was teaching us science.
I’d recommend John Walton’s the lost world series for more details.