At high risk of belaboring a tangential point, I do think you are still missing what I am saying here.
(as a quick aside the AIG article is a good read, thoughtful, even though we will disagree at times, and I almost fell of my chair when I saw them conclude with an embrace of "mystery" about what exactly sinful nature is. Mystery is a very good theological response to much of this. https://answersingenesis.org/sin/original-sin/sin-nature-passed-through-fathers-genetic-line/ )
My complaint is not that they dispute or attack these views. Certainly some people hold them and I agree that they (for the most part) are wrong here. What I dispute is saying all this = historical Adam. That bundling is the part that is not fair and contributes to just a massive amount of confusion.
Rather than just repeating that point, let me propose an alternate way of doing this that preserves his point. He might have said...
This framing, I feel, would have left the entire premise of the book intact, but would haved also obviated the most common critiques. This framing most of us who affirm a historical Adam could endorse and even promote, even if McKnight ultimately came to a different conclusion on Adam than us. Speaking for myself, I may not have identified any difficulty with his argument.
So, what exactly is gained by bundling everything into a 7 point definition, rather than mapping it out like I just did here?