From the title it was possible to understand that I meant to ask that it implies that God has a bodily form, and I have seen Maimonides' view and many commentaries, but they did not put my mind at ease. I see the verses as pointing quite unequivocally to God's corporeality [and also many passages in the portion, like the sons of God and "Where are you?" and more]. Thanks.

The closest thing to something normal written online on this topic is here:

https://www.knowingfaith.co.il/%D7%9E%D7%A7%D7%A8%D7%90-%D7%95%D7%90%D7%A8%D7%9B%D7%99%D7%90%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%92%D7%99%D7%94/%D7%94%D7%92%D7%A9%D7%9E%D7%AA-%D7%94%D7%90%D7%9C-%D7%91%D7%9E%D7%A1%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%AA-%D7%99%D7%A9%D7%A8%D7%90%D7%9C

Thanks, I know that interpretation well, and I feel very uncomfortable with it.
I thought of raising another view, namely this is my opinion: not the entire Torah was written at Sinai by Moses.
[See Ibn Ezra at the beginning of Deuteronomy, and Spinoza's Theologico-Political Treatise; that is my simple assumption unless the Rabbi has a different opinion on the matter, in which case I'd be happy to hear it.] And if so, maybe this section was added by the editors of the Torah, who wanted to start from the beginning.
For me personally, this solves a lot of problems: a) the creation story versus evolution; b) many passages there regarding the corporeality of God, such as God walking in the garden or asking "Where are you?" and also that the sons of God marry the daughters of men; and also the story of Noah and the flood, and the story of the Tower of Babel—everything sounds strange. And in truth, regarding the Noah story, it has already been found that it was a national saga back then, and it is also found in Mesopotamia, and apparently in Israel too, and therefore it entered the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh). Thanks.

It wasn't God who created man in His image—rather man created God in his image. And you are indeed right: the God described in the Bible is in human form. If you want a full expansion on this, read Haggai Dagan's Jewish Mythology. There he distilled all the mythical material from the extensive literature into a concise summary, and at the end of each chapter he gives all the sources. As for the Bible itself, it was written by hundreds of writers, and in the Temple, over hundreds of years, from the 5th century BCE, retrospectively. And it was all written under one roof. What they tell you—that the Torah was written by Moses—those are fairy tales from the tradition of the Sages.

A — never mind that, as usual, you assert unproven things dogmatically (some of which are even wrong by everyone's standards)—at least do it properly.
The accepted picture, if anything, is writing beginning from the 8th century, late 9th.

M. I wrote to you that I'm A. with a dot, and you're bordering on defamatory name-calling toward another person. "The picture, if anything, is writing is"—one "is" is enough. You don't really want to know how much you get under my skin. Don't make me publicly humiliate you. Join your traditionalist friends, like the link you sent here—they're chatterboxes who just want people to accept what they say, just like you. You write "as usual." Where did you learn to lie like that? From the Haredim? Were you there?

As the saying goes: too bad, your face is red.

And if you were already nitpicking M's fringes, you should have latched onto another remark: whoever comes to greed comes to error in learning. For he wrote that there are two problems: one, to assert unproven things dogmatically; and the second, to describe things correctly. And he said that your way is to suffer from problem A, and here in his opinion you also suffered from problem B. But in parentheses there he wrote that some of them are even entirely wrong, meaning you described things incorrectly; if so, we've already learned that your way also includes problem B, so what was he adding? And it seems to me that M's intention was that there is also a third problem: accurate quotation of a scholarly claim, except that this claim has been shattered to pieces. And he said that your way involves problem A and problem C, and here problem B was also added anew.

Someone above posted the wrong link. If anyone is interested in a fitting and scholarly response against the invention of biblical criticism and its theory of speculation, you're invited to study the essay written by Rabbi Dr. Yoel Bin-Nun, who dealt with the subject from foundation to finish, here:
https://www.knowingfaith.co.il/%D7%9E%D7%A7%D7%A8%D7%90-%D7%95%D7%90%D7%A8%D7%9B%D7%99%D7%90%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%92%D7%99%D7%94/%D7%AA%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%AA-%D7%94%D7%AA%D7%A2%D7%95%D7%93%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%9E%D7%A7%D7%A8%D7%90-%D7%95%D7%91%D7%99%D7%A7%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%AA-%D7%9E%D7%93%D7%A2-%D7%95%D7%9E%D7%A1%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%AA

And it is enough for me to say that biblical criticism is full of schools that oppose one another, and it has no superiority over the traditional explanation. The content of the above article clarifies its approach in relation to the various schools and presents a combined explanation for both the tradition and the literary-research problems.