I can appreciate what you are trying to do, but I have to insist that "spiritualizing" or "allegorizing" the HISTORICAL creation account isn't a valid method of doing so. Actually, when such things are forced upon a passage which are contrary to sound exegesis and to the "historico-grammatico" hermeneutic, it tends to discredit the argument as much as the other methods used.

And just in case you aren't aware, I hold tenaciously to a 6 day/24 hour creation (young earth) view. grin The fact that God didn't create the "light-bearers" until the fourth day poses no problem for me whatsoever. There is no necessity to explain how it is that there was light before the sun and moon were created. And perhaps just as important, the ability to explain the phenomena which I believe isn't revealed, means that it isn't for us to know! (Deut 29:29) Speculation on things not revealed most often cause far more problems than trying to offer an explanation. wink

That there are "types", "antitypes" and "foreshadowing" in Scripture is true. But in EVERY case, the antitypes and fulfillment of them is included. We are not to fabricate either, e.g., by imposing a fundamental "grid", e.g., the Gospel upon all of Scripture. Many have done this and wrested the Scriptures to their embarrassment and some to their own destruction. (2Pet 3:16) Therefore I would caution you to be very prudent in how you interpret God's inspired Word.

In His Grace,

[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]