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: Jeff I will refrain from following your pattern of behaviour. I will simply reply 1). That you clearly did not read carefully what I wrote. 2). That you did not have the courtesy to answer any of my questions such as (I quote) a). All I can say is that if you think you know when the angels fell (apart from Satan) other than in Genesis 6.1-2 then demonstrate it from Scripture. b). And perhaps you will also indicate where in Scripture mankind are called in an unqualified way 'spirits'. I have given you a number of references where angels are called 'spirits'. c). Please can you tell me anywhere in Scripture where men are spoken of as 'spirits in prison'? I note also that your answers are in the form of dogmatic statements not of arguments on the basis of Scripture, reference to which in your last reply is singularly lacking. You say, 'The long-held, orthodox view of the Fall is established from a common sense, logical, and contextual approach to Scripture'. That is always the refuge of those who have no arguments. I did not deny that angels had fallen (you see you do not read what people have written). I stated that you could produce no Scripture which said when it had happened. I had already given you detailed Scriptures about Satan so that is irrelevant. I appreciate that you are not a scholar and cannot therefore be expected to take a fully scholarly approach. But I do expect you to be fair. I have been checking back on some of your posts and I would remind you of what you said to one person you wrote to: "let me say that a quick lesson to learn regarding the forum is to not expect to respond to every post made to you. It may seem rude, but it's the reality of it. Very often the multiple responses are addressing the same issue and a response to the first questioner should be sufficient. In addition, there are others who can competently answer questions as well freeing you up from some of the responsibility." I had replied to the first questioner so it seems that you change your coat to suit the situation. You have admitted that you were not genuinely seeking guidance but were simply seeking to find fault. And quite frankly I do not like the way you treat your adversaries. I must therefore request that you will please avoid personally addressing any questions to me in future. Leave it to Doc to do the monitoring. I realise that you will want to have the last blast. It is your way. But please address it to the forum and not to me, for I am not interested. In Him |