Yes, the message is true, but the fact that you discount the truth of the event proves that you, or your leaders, put the interpretation of man ahead of the text. There is absolutely nothing in that story that suggests it is an allegory. Nothing.
I assume that you take the accounts of the crucifixion and resurrection as a literal event, right? Those accounts also gave no indication of allegory. How are you to know when to believe and when not to? The only way to know is for your hierarchy to tell you so. Man's interpretation is always first, the Bible is always second.
My "leaders" don't, FK. I am a "black sheep." I am not a spokesman for the Church, for sure. I simply confess publicly my doubts. I do not claim that I am right. At least I don't say that the Holy Spirit "guides" me. I would never use His Holy Name to dignify my babble.
There is absolutely nothing in that story that suggests it is an allegory. Nothing
No there isn't. But that story tells me that God "grieved" and "repented" and was "sorry" because the people He created to be good became spoiled and rotten as if He had no control or foreknowledge of it, or, worse, as if He didn't plan it that way.
If I believe the story to be true, then I must believe that God was surprised and disappointed, and felt stabbed in the back. Then I must believe that He didn't know. That He didn't see it coming. And that I don't believe!
It is much easier for me to see that the story was meant for the Jews to realize that their disobedience will bring natural disasters as a punishment from God than to believe that God was grieved, repentant, surprised, and blind-sided -- or, worse, that He intentionally created man so He could drown the whole wicked lot along with innocent animals.