Now, it seems to me that all of these kinds of factors are also in play in Genesis. Why wouldn't they be?
There is nothing in your post I would disagree with. I fact I am in full absolute agreement with you. The only point I have been trying to make all along, is that for somethintg to be a type of something else (antitype) both have to be real. Exodus - Baptism, Copper Serpent - Christ, Moses with his arms stretched - Cross, Burning Bush - the Mother of God, etc. Is not it how it works? I thought that was the reason atheists have always tried to discredit the historical reality of the events described in the New and Old Testaments. You are given the type first, which you may not understand, a storm, and then God reveals you the inner meaning of it - the state of your soul, the fear of dying, etc, yet the type, the strom is still real. It would not be an overliterization to take a stom on the sea for what it is, a strom. Am I wrong? The other point that I find critical, at least for myself, is to work out the proper type-antitype relationship when it comes to the Bible. So I feel much more confortable with simply relying of what the fathers have to say about this than what it seems to me, for quite frankly my soul is in a stormy state all the time and I reasonably doubt I can always see things for what they are when it comes to the Holy Writ.