The problem with the KJV is not just that Greek and Hebrew are better understood these days. It is that some words have changed meaning. For example, "conversation" to 17th century Englishmen meant way of life, not just words. These days, a lot of people are barely literate, let alone skilled in Elizabethan English.The KJV is a fine translation if you English includes the language employed therein. By and through can be used interchangeably in the context it is used in that particular text. By water and through water may be understood, as we all understand it.
Did you say Greek and Hebrew are better to understand these day? So the languages evolved? Like fake evolution. I think Greek would have been better understood back then..lmbo And Paleo Hebrew was lost. They speak Aramaic language from Babylon. Not real Hebrew. The Greek lexicon and Concordances are corrupted. The new age Bibles are corrupted. So those 40 kjv scholars that were fluent in all those languages didn't have real Greek? Lmbo Greek is better now? It's got the new and improved words that those 40 scholars didnt have? ...wow TypicalThe problem with the KJV is not just that Greek and Hebrew are better understood these days. It is that some words have changed meaning. For example, "conversation" to 17th century Englishmen meant way of life, not just words. These days, a lot of people are barely literate, let alone skilled in Elizabethan English.
I was saved in the early 1970's. The KJV was in wide use still. Virtually every sermon I heard involved an explanation of what the KJV said against what the text meant. My logic was simple. Ditch the KJV (I was never a Shakespeare fan) and get a more modern translation. I ended up with the NASB and the Amplified mostly. I now use Bible Hub and compare versions when I need to.
I don't like paraphrases. I teach the Bible, although I'm on a break now. So you can be sure that I take it very seriously. I really wanted to be an Evangelist, 3but God has other plans.
Consider the NT spiritual reality foreshadowed by the flood. God used literal water to destroy sin on the Earth and at the same time saved Noah and his family.It seems like there's a very basic misunderstanding of what Peter is saying when comparing baptism with Noah's flood.
The people baptized (submersed) in water were the people that died in God's judgement. Noah and his family were saved FROM baptism (the water), NOT by baptism (the water), which is the direct opposite of the OP's conclusion.
To think that this passage says "baptism saves you" is a reference to water baptism saving you is the direct opposite of the point in Peter's explanation: The baptism Noah and his family entered into was the answer to God in good conscience, which is directly opposite to the ones who were baptized in water and perished.
There are so many proof texts of salvation by faith, I suppose it's good to talk about the few that seem confusing to that point.
It seems like there's a very basic misunderstanding of what Peter is saying
when comparing baptism with Noah's flood.
.
Good point.
Noah didn't get wet, and neither did the people of Israel when they were
baptized by means of the Red Sea. (Ex 14:21-22 and 1Cor 10:1-2)
In both events, in was the bad people got wet rather than the good.
_
1 Peter 3:20-21
“...God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.
The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:”
I believe the water mentioned in 1 Peter 3:20-21 pertains to water baptism for the following reasons:
1.The water was the means God used to carry Noah and his family to safety. The sin of the world was washed away in the flood waters. The like figure or antitype is the NT water baptism. (Acts 2:38, 22:16)
2. Notice verse 21 makes specific mention of the process having nothing to do with the removal of filth from the flesh. (This is a reference to bath water) Thus, the comment points to a spiritual transaction taking place.
3. The scripture mentions that baptism is the answer of a good conscience toward God. Our own behavior, and in this particular case getting baptized, is what prompts a good conscience. The result is to be free of guilt. God is the giver of the Holy Ghost and we have no control over that other than asking for Him to give it.
4. Lastly, the scripture specifies this is only made possible by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
1 Peter 3:20-21
“...God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.
The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:”
I believe the water mentioned in 1 Peter 3:20-21 pertains to water baptism for the following reasons:
1.The water was the means God used to carry Noah and his family to safety. The sin of the world was washed away in the flood waters. The like figure or antitype is the NT water baptism. (Acts 2:38, 22:16)
2. Notice verse 21 makes specific mention of the process having nothing to do with the removal of filth from the flesh. (This is a reference to bath water) Thus, the comment points to a spiritual transaction taking place.
3. The scripture mentions that baptism is the answer of a good conscience toward God. Our own behavior, and in this particular case getting baptized, is what prompts a good conscience. The result is to be free of guilt. God is the giver of the Holy Ghost and we have no control over that other than asking for Him to give it.
4. Lastly, the scripture specifies this is only made possible by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Let me say first I am a Baptist so yes I do think people should be baptized. That being said are you suggesting that the only way a person can have a good conscience toward God is through baptism? If so what do you say to all those denominations that do not baptize?
1 Corinthians 1:14 NIV - 14 I thank God that I did not baptize any of you
except Crispus and Gaius . . .
What a weird thing to say, huh? I mean, if water baptism saves a person,
then this is equivalent to Paul saying that he's glad that "you" did not
receive Holy Salvation. That's insane.
I disagree with your descriptions.What you would be proclaiming here the Bible does not teach, though it is taught in some denominations.
let's examine your original post.
"1.The water was the means God used to carry Noah and his family to safety. The sin of the world was washed away in the flood waters. The like figure or antitype is the NT water baptism. (Acts 2:38, 22:16)"
The waters did not carry Noah and the others to safety, the ARK did. The waters were God's act of condemnation upon the world. The whole world was flooded and the ARK road safely above those waters until God's Judgement was complete. The water could be said to have born up the ark upon itself. Note also, the ark was "closed up" by God Himself and not man.
"2. Notice verse 21 makes specific mention of the process having nothing to do with the removal of filth from the flesh. (This is a reference to bath water) Thus, the comment points to a spiritual transaction taking place."
Peter is not making a distinction between "Baptism" and "bath water". What he is saying here is that the ordinance of Baptism cannot cleanse one of inward filth and sin (the sin nature that resides in us all), because only the application of Christ's shed blood can do that. Comparing the flood to Baptism is utilizing the idea that just as the ARK was supported by the waters of the flood, so to are our consciences supported by this act.
"3. The scripture mentions that baptism is the answer of a good conscience toward God. Our own behavior, and in this particular case getting baptized, is what prompts a good conscience. The result is to be free of guilt. God is the giver of the Holy Ghost and we have no control over that other than asking for Him to give it."
The act of being Baptized does not, as you say, "... prompt a good conscience.", as if some how you are changed by it but rather is carried out "by a good conscience", as the first act of obedience to Christ. Baptism does not make one free of guilt, the one carrying it out believes that the shed blood of Jesus Christ is sufficient to cover all his/her sins and therefore is blameless. Out of a good conscience that person follows his/her Lord's example in Baptism. Baptism is not required for salvation. The thief on the cross with Jesus, was never Baptized into Christ's Baptism nor was there any mention of him ever being baptized at all.
Indeed one does need to be "Born Again" to be saved and this is the sovereign act of the Holy Spirit. We have know part in being born anew. We are the "passive " recipients of this new life and have no more part in it than we had in our physical births.
The parallel of sin being washed away in water baptism is seen in the flood. The same water that caused the death and "burial" of sinful man carried the obedient to safety while situated in the ark.Genesis 7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.
...
Genesis 8:2 The fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained
The water (from the rain and the fountains of the deep) were used by God in judgment.
Noah was safe within the ark ... Noah became heir of the righteousness which is by faith:
Hebrews 11:7 By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.
The things not seen as yet ... rain and the fountains of the deep being broken up ... were the means by which God condemned the world.
The ark, which Noah prepared by faith was what carried Noah through the judgment by which God condemned with world.
The good conscience addressed in this particular scripture is in reference to obeying God's command to be water baptized. And is specifically associated with the NT spiritual rebirth.Let me say first I am a Baptist so yes I do think people should be baptized. That being said are you suggesting that the only way a person can have a good conscience toward God is through baptism? If so what do you say to all those denominations that do not baptize?
They are being disobedient to the very command of God. Everyone will be judged by the word, not what their denomination teaches:Let me say first I am a Baptist so yes I do think people should be baptized. That being said are you suggesting that the only way a person can have a good conscience toward God is through baptism? If so what do you say to all those denominations that do not baptize?
Your comment is so off base.And what do they say about Paul, when he said that he was glad that he didn't baptize "many"?
1 Corinthians 1:14 NIV - 14 I thank God that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius . . .
What a weird thing to say, huh? I mean, if water baptism saves a person, then this is equivalent to Paul saying that he's glad that "you" did not receive Holy Salvation. That's insane.