Is it likely that the rainbow is a covenant between us and God and an extension of the other allegories in the Torah?

Hi Mikhi. This verse: I set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a sign of a covenant between me and the earth, sounds strange. First, because a bow is part of natural reality and is created under certain conditions (this is essentially like your questions about systematic human intervention – after all, everything is explained by natural means and there is no room for oversight), and is it not possible for the conditions to be created without humans sinning? Second, this idea – a bow as a covenant – has a sharp and unpleasant scent of myth and folktale. The bow as a myth exists in many cultures, which have interpreted it in various ways, for example, as a path that heavenly beings walk on in joy. In fact, this feeling exists in many places in the book of Genesis. Indeed, knowing you, you would answer me something like: “There are several explanations and I don’t care which one is correct, the main thing is that there is an explanation.” But the plausibility of the answers must be examined. Even if logically the answers are wonderful, is it likely that this is the writer’s intention? Isn’t it more likely that the writer of the Torah intended a myth? In other words, the answers are “stable” but not “true.” In fact, this emphasis should be questioned more forcefully about all the allegories that rationalists use to explain the stories of the Garden of Eden; the Flood; Creation ; and many other places. Excuses are excuses. Logically, everything is fine. But is it reasonable? It seems more likely that the flood did indeed occur throughout the world. And that dust from the earth is dust from the earth. Etc. Etc. And in the law, if it walks like a duck, sounds like a duck, and looks like a duck, then it is a duck. Doesn’t this seriously undermine the reliability of the Torah? What are you saying?