Prior Book | Prior Chapter | Prior Verse | Next Verse | Next Chapter | Next Book | Viewing NASB and Amplified 2015 | |
NASB | 1 Peter 3:21 Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you--not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience--through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, |
AMPLIFIED 2015 | 1 Peter 3:21 Corresponding to that [rescue through the flood], baptism [which is an expression of a believer's new life in Christ] now saves you, not by removing dirt from the body, but by an appeal to God for a good (clear) conscience, [demonstrating what you believe to be yours] through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, |
Subject: in Prisons |
Bible Note: Hello Rabban, Please bear with me in my continued efforts. When you wrote that “it is a waste of time to argue over something that has been disputed for 2000 years…” you sort of hit the nail on the head. As my original post was not transparent enough let me say clearly that this was part of my concern. All public forums that I am aware of have their own written and unwritten rules, so to speak. The standard on SBF is to avoid controversial issues that have long-standing points of disagreement, especially where no definitive biblical text can rule one side in or out. When I say “avoid” I particularly mean the avoiding of posting such opinions as definite or factual. It is customary, and I believe more scholarly, to at least offer that there is a differing opinion on the issue so that others less learned have the opportunity to consider. With that said, it is obvious to me from reading your posts that you are, and apparently have for some time been, a serious student of the Bible. I respect that and see that to the advantage of the forum as well as myself personally. My point in asking you to support your argument biblically was really to illustrate that you could not. Not in order to embarrass you or create an argument, but rather to show that we have a responsibility to not declare what Scripture does not. To your points on Scripture and the “Fall” of angels I have this in short response. This, as I understand it, does not fall into that category of ‘disputed’ texts or doctrines. The long-held, orthodox view of the Fall is established from a common sense, logical, and contextual approach to Scripture. Satan is described in Scripture as the “Father of Lies” for example. The serpent in the Garden, with Adam and Eve accomplished its goal through deception. If the serpent was not Satan actually, it was the result of Satan’s work specifically; a fallen Lucifer that is. A common sense, logical approach to Scripture requires that conclusion and amounts to more than “the briefest hint”. For sake of time and space I will not attempt to correct the obvious errors such as, for example, stating “the New Testament writers never give any hint of believing in ‘a fall of angels’ outside of Revelation” while at the same time (in the same post) you very clearly give NT reference to where they have done just that very thing (2Peter 2:4 as one obvious example) In short- the rhetoric does nothing to support your position but plenty to avoid offering the biblical support requested. With that, I do agree to disengage from the discussion. God bless, Jeff |