metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
For what it's worth, I fully agree with you.I see no reason why a myth or story needs to be literally true to be used as an allegory.
At this point in time, there simply is no good reason to assume the creation and flood narratives deal with factual history. Instead, the evidence that we do have is that both were reworked Babylonian narratives altered to fit Jewish morals and values. A tablet that deals with a Babylonian creation narrative was found in northern Israel that predates the writing of Genesis by around a thousand years, so the Torah authors would have probably been familiar with it.
As you're undoubtedly aware of, the Jewish scriptures heavily use various literary techniques to make their points, including allegories, metaphors, parables, etc. In some of the Jewish and Christian books, they are used so heavily that they actually occupy more space than attempts at conveying history, such as the Psalms and Revelations.
One of the greatest Jewish sages, Maimonides, believed that the first 14 chapters of Genesis extensively use these techniques at least partially because taking them literally creates problems. When it comes to dealing with interpretation, Jewish sages tended to take the approach that in a particular interpretation defies reason, then look for alternative interpretations.