No - I'm saying that if you dismiss all logical possibilities
So, a totally babyless society is a logical possibility now? Because the complete absence of babies is the only way there could have been no babies killed.
I now say that because the bible doesn't specifically mention babies - that God made a big baba spacecraft for all cutie babas to get on while the flood occurred, afterall - the bible doesn't say this.
If that's what you need to maintain your faith in the Bible, then knock yourself out. It's no sillier than a guy living inside a whale.
I can understand your need to invent stuff like this, though. The Bible, as it stands on its own, is pretty difficult to take seriously.
MUST that logically mean babies?
Yes, Mike. "Everyone" does indeed include any babies that were there. So once again, unless it was some sort of bizarre babyless world, then it does logically mean babies.
If you want to avoid the conclusion that God killed babies, feel free to defend the stance that there were no babies on the Earth at the time of the flood. Because "there were no babies" is really the only way to avoid the conclusion "God killed babies".
And again, you'd really think the authors of the Bible would have mentioned something like, "By the way, there were no babies. Like... anywhere! Messed up, huh? I mean... a whole planet with no babies? What's up with that?"
I've established none were righteouss according to God.
God's really got a mad-on for those sinful babies.
I've established that it only mentions men.
So I guess there were no first-born male children or babies in Egypt, huh? Because if there were, then God killed 'em dead!
That'll teach 'em a lesson.