Is The New Birth a Metaphor?

As some readers of this blog know, I do not believe that God adopts children into his family, but rather believe that children are born into God's family. The Greek word "huiothesia" that is translated as "adoption" in the five instances where the apostle Paul uses the word does not denote the way God produces children. The chief argument for this conclusion is the fact that a child born does not need to be adopted by his own parents. Rather, huiothesia means "son placement" and alludes to an event yet future, in connection with the resurrection and glorification of believers (Rom. 8: 23), when the children or babes in Christ become full grown sons, perfected, so that they are completely made in the image and likeness of God and Christ. My view is a minority view, but that does not mean it cannot be correct as some fallaciously reason. 

In reading the argumentation of those who believe that God both gives birth to (begets) and adopts his own children I have seen it argued that both birth and adoption are "metaphors" of the way God produces children. Got Questions web page, a generally good and accurate commentary on many bible texts and subjects, says this however (See here):

"To adopt someone is to make that person a legal son or daughter. Adoption is one of the metaphors used in the Bible to explain how Christians are brought into the family of God. Jesus came “that we might receive adoption to sonship” (Galatians 4:5), and He was successful: “You received God’s Spirit when he adopted you as his own children” (Romans 8:15, NLT).

."

The Bible also uses the metaphor of being “born again” into God’s family (John 3:3), which seems to be at odds with the concept of adoption because, normally, either a person is born into a family or adopted, not both. We shouldn’t make too much of the difference, however, because both of these concepts are metaphors and should not be played against each other."

I vehemently deny that being born of God is a metaphor! Brothers and sisters, being born of God is literal. If it is not literal, then I am not a literal child, but a metaphorical child. That is absurd, reductio ad absurdum. 

Further, the "huiothesia," whether it be adoption in the normal sense, or in the sense of reaching manhood and full likeness to a father as I believe, it is literal and not a metaphor.

The above commentary does acknowledge the absurdity of claiming to be a child of a father by both birth and adoption when it says "normally, either a person is born into a family or adopted, not both." That fact should have led the commentators to come to my view.