I understand that after you reached the conclusion that evolution is most likely true, you then interpret the creation story as an educational myth. My problem with that is that in order to do this, one has to begin from the assumption that the Torah is true, and then we have no choice but to interpret it that way.
My difficulty is with that assumption itself. After all, that assumption too is in doubt, and the more I find factual inaccuracies in the Torah, and stories that did not happen, the more it undermines the reliability of the Torah as a whole.
How do I know that the revelation at Mount Sinai is not an educational myth? Or that the story of the patriarchs is not an educational myth?
And if it is possible to plant so many myths, then how do we know how to distinguish truth from myth?
And if you say: there is a broad tradition that asserts the truth of the revelation at Mount Sinai, I would say to you that until evolution was discovered, most Jews also thought the creation story was true as written, at least approximately, and regarding the count of years and the creation of man.
For me too, commitment to Jewish law does not stem from its content but from the belief that it is the will of God.
The problem is that my belief that this is the will of God is based on belief in the Torah’s story and in the factual reality it conveys to us.
The more I lose trust in the Torah’s accuracy and in its historical correctness, the more my trust in the Torah itself is shaken as well, meaning in the claim that it was indeed given from Heaven.
It is like when a person misleads me or lies to me again and again, even if unintentionally: I will be cautious before believing him and will doubt what he says, all the more so if the things are blatantly implausible. So too regarding the Torah.
The claims of our tradition are especially radical: signs and wonders, the Creator of the world speaking with human beings, people ascending to heaven, magic and sorcery, animals speaking, and stories that I would not accept if I heard them in any other culture. And the tradition places demands before us that are not simple at all. In order for me to accept both the claims of the tradition and the demands it places before us, I need to have great trust in it. A trust that is undermined the more I encounter falsehoods or factual inaccuracy, not in small matters but on the level of inventing stories that never happened and describing things that have no connection to reality.
Even if research is saturated with agendas, which is probably true, that does not mean it has no correct claims.
The numbers for Israel’s armies in the wars are completely implausible and cannot be anywhere near reality. The creation story has no connection to reality in any way. And even if we say that one begins believing the Torah only after Adam was created, even then it does not work, because humanity has existed for millions of years, not 6,000. And there are many more events, too many to list.
I did not manage to formulate the question properly, but if you can answer the difficulties I have raised, at least on the level of principle, I would be very grateful.

In the end, this is a general impression and not a clear logical argument. Since in my opinion there are very good considerations in favor of the giving of the Torah at Sinai, I would need excellent evidence in order to reject the divinity of the Torah. The fact that the text contains myths and historical stories together with Jewish laws is the character of this text. We have no sharp criterion for determining when something is myth and when not, but that is the nature of this kind of literature. It can also change over the generations in light of accumulating knowledge. The first chapters of Genesis smell like myth, for example. Further on it looks more like a factual-historical story, but perhaps mythical details or just plain mistakes were woven into it as well. It is certainly reasonable that there were later additions to the biblical text, such as the verses that say “to this very day.”
Therefore it is not right to compare this to a person who deceives you, whether intentionally or unintentionally. You need to understand the character of the text in question and know how to separate the wheat from the chaff.
I also do not accept your description, according to which our trust in the divinity of the Torah is because of it and from within it. That trust is because of the living tradition that accompanies the Torah. The fact that throughout the generations people thought the creation story was an authentic description is a mistake in interpretation, not an erroneous tradition. It is not that there was a tradition that that is how the creation story happened. The tradition transmitted the Torah, and within it we interpreted the creation story as a historical narrative. So we were mistaken. But regarding the revelation at Mount Sinai, it is completely clear that the tradition transmits it as a historical event. Commandments were also given there that there is no reason to keep if such an event did not happen.
The non-natural descriptions that appear in the Torah can also be part of events that really did happen. The fact that today there are no miracles does not prove that there were none in the past. Therefore it is not correct to judge those stories as necessarily fictional. Although, as I said, even if they were, that does not really matter for our purposes.
And again, there are always doubts, and you should not expect unequivocal answers. Still, in my opinion the framing story is what determines things, as I wrote at the beginning.

“But regarding the revelation at Mount Sinai, it is completely clear that the tradition transmits it as a historical event. Commandments were also given there that there is no reason to keep if such an event did not happen” — what about the commandment of the Sabbath? Is there any reason to keep it if there was no event of creation in six days?

True. The same goes for “You shall not murder.” So what? I did not say that none of the commandments have a rationale. It is enough that this is the case for some of them, a large part of them.

You did not understand me. The reason written in the Torah for the commandment of the Sabbath is that “in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day He rested and was refreshed.” That proves that creation in six days is a historical event and not a myth, just like your proof that Sinai is historical and not a myth.

Is that Chinese? You came to explain something, didn’t you?
If the framing myth speaks about creation in six days, then the Jewish law that commemorates it does so as well. Did you expect us to celebrate the Sabbath once every 14 billion years? I am not talking about the events on which one commandment or another is based, but only about the revelation at Mount Sinai, without which no commandment has any validity. See my critique of Rabbi Amit Kula’s book, Was It or Was It Not.

Which numbers of Israel’s armies are implausible?
And why does the creation story have no connection to reality? How do you know how fast time passed during the six days of Genesis, or alternatively how fast the process of creation took place?

The fact that there are stories in the Torah that did not happen, but were accepted as historical truth throughout the generations, makes it hard to trust the Torah as a whole. We know that in the past all peoples had myths and folk traditions, as well as religious beliefs that were easily implanted. Beliefs in witches, magicians, and people with high spiritual charisma who were perceived as prophets and even as gods were widespread in many cultures of the ancient world. In Egypt, for example, they believed that the king was a human embodiment of the sun god. People back then did not have as developed a critical sense as we have today, and they thought that every occurrence in nature was the result of wars between gods or of the whims of the gods. To reject the Torah outright is probably impossible, just as it is with other traditions. The fact that I do not have certainty about the Torah is also not such a big problem, because as the Rabbi tends to say, and rightly so, we have certainty about nothing.

My main problem is that my belief is not strong enough for me to obligate myself absolutely to obey Jewish law. Apparently I am more inclined to believe in the Jewish tradition than to reject it. But the greater the practical demands placed before me, the higher my level of trust in the source of the Torah needs to be accordingly. My level of trust in morality, for example, is very high, and therefore my commitment to it is high.

Since the Torah contains erroneous facts and stories that did not happen, it makes it hard for me to trust the Torah itself. And it is not accurate to say that we believe in the Torah only by virtue of the tradition that accompanies it, because that tradition is based precisely on what is written in the Torah. There is only one tradition, and that is it. And if you say that the Torah is only our means of transmitting the tradition, I would answer that this is a problematic claim, because we do not really have a way of knowing that these are not myths that were implanted over the years, for example during the period of the kings of Israel. And the uniformity of the tradition makes that claim difficult.

Your claim that the fact that there are no miracles today does not prove that there were none in the past is correct. But even if that fact does not disprove the claim that there were miracles in the past, it certainly makes it harder to believe. Why would the Holy One, blessed be He, disappear completely from reality in such a way that it becomes very hard for us to understand that He revealed Himself and that He has demands of us? Throughout the entire Hebrew Bible, His intervention in reality is described, sometimes more and sometimes less, and the people’s belief in the reality of God was fairly absolute. The common claim that His disappearance allows for greater choice is problematic, because even when the people of Israel had certainty of God’s reality, we see that they still had choice, and that it did not prevent them from sinning. We also know from ourselves that the fact that we have near certainty in the truth of morality does not prevent us from having free choice.

“But regarding the revelation at Mount Sinai, it is completely clear that the tradition transmits it as a historical event. Commandments were also given there that there is no reason to keep if such an event did not happen.” — that is not entirely accurate, because there is value in creating a founding myth for a nation in order to sustain it on ethical, religious, and faith-based foundations. For all that, one needs a shared story and festivals that commemorate that story. All the surrounding peoples also had rites and forms of worship with a similar purpose. Therefore, even though the story is described as historical, that does not make it so. The stories of the patriarchs and of Noah and the flood are also described as historical, and yet their truth is still in doubt.

“We have no sharp criterion for determining when something is myth and when not, but that is the nature of this kind of literature.” — that claim may be true, but since the Hebrew Bible is a book with a clearly pedagogical purpose, it is hard to see even its historical descriptions as descriptions of objective reality. Since that is the case, it is hard to trust the Torah’s descriptions, because we know there is a narrative to the story and certain pedagogical aims that make it difficult to relate to the historical facts described there with full confidence.
(Again, sorry for the length, but I hope the difficulties are understood.)

All right, I explained what I had to explain. I will only note that the tradition is not based on the Torah, but accompanies it.

I did not understand—which facts described in the Torah have been proven false?