The majority of Biblical scholars interpret the story of the Flood as an allegory, not as a historical record. If it it the Word of God, why do so many people disagree on which parts are meant to be historical and which are allegorical?

There is literally no trace of a worldwide flood, and people have been looking hard for such a trace. The early geologists expected to find such a trace, so it's not like their eyes were closed to that possibility.

When do you think this worldwide flood took place? The written history of Egypt goes back some 5,000 years, and while they refer to regular floods, they make no mention of a world-wide flood.

The geophysical methods we have are able to detect the tsunami from the Storegga Slide that hit Scotland 6,000 years ago. The methods we have are able to identify tens of Missoula Floods which took place from 15,000 to 13,000 years ago. How can geologist find all of these less powerful events, but not something like a worldwide flood? Perhaps because no world-wide flood occurred?

Similarly, with the Exodus story, archeological methods are good enough that if there had been 1+ million people wandering in the desert for 40 years, it would have been noticed. They have been able to find trace of nomadic emplacements in general, so the methods do work. There's been over 100 years of attempts to something which confirms the Exodus story. Those in the early 1900s certainly believed the Biblical narrative was accurate history, only to find it wasn't. After the foundation of Israel, the Jews had even more incentive to show the validity of the events in the Torah, and they too not only found nothing, but are sufficiently confident that they say no such evidence exists.

Again, the Egyptians kept records. When do you think Exodus took place, and why is there no record of 1 million Jews working in or leaving Egypt, or of the empire being affected by plagues?

At what point do you conclude that we lack evidence not because we haven't been able to find it, but simply because it isn't there?

Except for the few which require the Bible to be correct, and view everything through that lens, archeologists of Near East have concluded that the story of Exodus is not historical but was written many of hundreds of years later for religious purposes (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Exodus#Historicity ), and geologists do not believe there was any global flood (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_geology or http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Global_flood ).

Jumping topics, you wrote: "I think it is disingenuous to compare the Holy Bible to the "Wicked Bible".

I don't think you bothered to understand what I was talking about, but instead jumped to a conclusion. The "Wicked Bible" is the tongue-in-cheek name for a reprint of the King James Bible where the publisher omitted the word "not" from Exodus 20:14. It has its own Wikipedia entry, at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicked_Bible . I can absolutely compare them because it is the Holy Bible (for Protestants; other branches of Christianity of course have different Holy Bibles)

It was a humorous point meant to show that I do not think that one publication mistake invalidate the rest of that Bible, just like I don't think that centuries of people believing the literature truth of Noah's Flood or of the Exodus invalidates the entire Bible.