Why Is Paul's Commentary on the Fall of Man Important?

In Romans 1.18-32 Paul the Apostle is basically demythologizing the Fall of Man (Genesis 2-3), making it more realistic, By explaining what really happened, Paul transforms Genesis 2-3 much like a caterpillar maturing into a butterfly. By doing so Paul acts as Christ's means for "fulfilling the [Torah] Law"(Matthew 5.17). In the sense that an acorn is fulfilled by it's growing into a tall oak tree.Gen 2-3 was never meant to remain as it is(embryonic), like an acorn is only a means to an end.    
   
Gen. 2-3 isn't the only passage that Paul magnifies, enlarges. He takes Genesis 1's "days," and turns them into full-bodied ages(eons)-"aionos" in the Greek(Hebrews 11.3), which word is the basis for the English "eons."    
   
Paul espouses the "Old Earth" position in the origins controversy between the Young Earth Creationists and the Big Bangers.The Book of Hebrews is largely the Jewish version versus the Christian.The priesthood, the sacrifices, the Sabbath. But even the Creation story. For in just one verse Paul gives us the embryonic Christian fulfilling of the Jewish "shadow" of the truth.    
   
Adam and Eve aren't really two people.They represent.early society. It's a bit like with "the two witnesses" (Revelation 11).They aren't just two people. They(the "two olive trees") are two groups, the Jews and Christians that make up the two parts of the olive tree(Romans 11).    
   
Where did Paul get the data he presents in Rom 1.18-32? How did he arrive at the conclusion that "they didn't give thanks"(Rom 1.23).? He read Genesis 2-3 which lacks any account of them being grateful to God. Based solely on that, he says, they didn't give thanks.He did the same thing in Hebrews   He says Melchizedek was "without earthly father or mother"(Hebrews 7.1-15). He had read the Genesis 14.18; Psalms 110.4) account which leaves out mention of the parents.    
   
Here's the parallels between Gen 2-3 and Rom 1.18-32. which prove that Rom 1 is about the Fall of Man.(My point is that we are to go with the Christian version rather than the Jewish.) (1)Adam and Eve sin, going from original innocence to the fallenness of guilt. (2) God expels them from the Garden of Eden. Likewise, in Paul's account of early mankind - "their minds became darkened"(Rom 1.23). Which implies they were not already "darkened," which suggests a state of innocence!! "God gives them up ..[and] gives them over to a reprobate mind"(1.25-27). Yes, it sounds remarkably like the Fall of man.    
   
In both accounts, there is a mention of "wisdom." Adam and Eve think they will become wise, "like the gods." While Paul puts it, "professing themselves to be wise, they became fools". In Genesis they are impressed with, won over by, the serpent.Paul expands upon that by saying they "worshiped and served..creeping things"(Rom 1.23) but also other animals.    
   
Sexual sins are emphasized in Paul's version. But even in Moses' account there is a hint of sex sinfulness to the extent that they become ashamed of their bodies, their sex organs. Since Paul explicitly states elsewhere that he "spoke plainly," ie literally, "not like Moses" who wore a veil over his face and whose words by extension, were "veiled" truth(2 Corinthians 3), Paul is asserting that Moses used euphemistic language. So we can take the "forbidden fruit," the eating of it, as referring to oral sex, among other things.    
   
Now for the final parallel: both accounts link the sinfulness with death.Moses has God telling them that death will be their penalty. Likewise, Paul closes with death as being what the guilty deserve.    
   
But there is an obvious difference between the two accounts. Moses deals with (the beginning of) the Fall, but that's all. The depth of depravity that the Fall leads to is not included. Whereas Paul expands upon Moses by addressing every kind of evil, murder,etc.Paul deals not so much with the Fall as much as what all it has resulted in. While Paul adds so much, it is breath-taking how much he jettisons. No "tree of knowledge" or "tree of Life," no garden, no talking snake, thank God..  
   
PS: Christ claimed that the Son of Man is also "Lord of the Sabbath"(Matthew 12.8) .which would mean able to define it, changing it if he chooses to.  
If God wanted to signal to us that he favors the Old Earth over the Young Earth position, what better way to do it other than to put the original Sabbath down, and raising up a second, a CHRISTIAN version of it??!! Just as His Resurrection was proof that His atonement for the sins of the world was valid, approved, so too his resurrection ON SUNDAY forever authorizes that Sunday become the successor Sabbath.  
   
"The Sabbath is made for man"(Mark 2.27) can include for guidance on the subject of the Origins question. Man rests so as to remember God's creating of the Universe.That is what it is for - to focus on the creating.  
Since Paul the Apostle calls the Sabbath specifically a "shadow," this suggests that there will come the reality,the fulfillment of the Sabbath.  
In line with Christ instituting a new Rest, a new Sabbath, the Church in the form of Edwin Hubble(discoverer of the expansion of the universe) and Catholic Fr. Georges Lemaitre (founder of the Big Bang Theory) (under the name, "the Cosmic Egg") has further justified the shedding of the old version and the building of the new edifice.As the Sabbath was the sign of the Mosaic covenant (Exodus 31.13,17; Ezekiel 20.12,20), so too with the New Testament. The Sunday Sabbath serves as its sign.