Literal belief in the flood story

[RobbyPants]

---

The code is acting up so I'll respond in a way that hopefully you'll understand what quote I'm responding to.

What I mean by 'consistent with the account in question' is that the account does not contradict the conclusion. Therefore, it is a possibility that is consistent with the account in question.

Actually the Bible does speak of another time in human history in which there were no children: the survivors of the flood, eight adults, no children.

7 And Noah went in, and his sons, and his wife, and his sons' wives with him, into the ark, because of the waters of the flood. (Genesis 7:7)

and elsewhere:

Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. 1 Peter 3:20.

Note: 8 souls= four men and their four wives. Explicitly no children.

---

You're bringing up the circumstances after the flood to explain how there might not have been children before the flood? You're saying that after everyone drown except eight adults, that there were no children, so there might not have been children before? You're violating causality. Do you see the problem with this?

The point is: the Bible never establishes no children as "normal". The only two times you will find are:
1) Creation, and
2) After the story in question.
You will not find anything else. There is no compelling reason to assume this is the case.

I agree that 'no children' is not the established consistent normal. The flood is also not the established consistent normal.

It doesn't matter if the flood was normal. You've admitted that it is normal to consider children existing in human civilizations. Just because the Bible didn't explicitly state there were children doesn't mean it's reasonable to assume that maybe they weren't there.

Did the story explicitly state that gravity was in effect? I bet you were assuming it was, because there's no compelling reason to believe that gravity wasn't behaving normally that day.

you open yourself to every conceivable and even non conceivable possibilities because you believe God 'magicked all the evidence away'.[/Hide]

No. The "magicked away" claim is in response to the idea that Genesis says X happened and there is no evidence that X happened. For X to have happened, something would have had to tamper with the evidence.

That in no way opens up the door to unicorns or leprechauns. The argument was "God used magic to pull off the flood but not to save children" not "God used magic to pull off the flood, therefore all magic is up for discussion". That's called a non sequitur.