Baptism and Filth of the Flesh

In doing research on the KJV onlyists, I came across an argument against baptism that I want to address. It goes as follows. Those who believe that baptism is necessary for salvation will usually cite 1 Peter 3:21. But that actually disproves the necessity of baptism. When you look at 2 Corinthians 7:1, you see that "filth of the flesh" refers to sin. And since 1 Peter says baptism doesn't do away with the filth of the flesh, it therefore doesn't do away with sin. So baptism doesn't save.

Understand that in dealing with the KJV onlyists, you may have to look at other translations. I'm no expert in languages, but I do trust that the translators did a good enough job for me to understand what is given to me without any expertise in any ancient language. However, just as I am skeptical of Jehovah's Witnesses using a translation that is unique to them, and various other cults doing the same, skepticism can be warranted in dealing with KJVO and looking and comparing various translations can be helpful. And here, we do see differences in words that will affect the way one understands this passage. So, real quick, 1 Peter 3:21 KJV reads

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:

And 2 Corinthians 7:1 KJV reads

Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.

So, how do other translations render 1 Peter 3:21?

Here is the NIV

and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

 Here is the ESV

Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

Here is the NASB

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,

The NLT, NRSV, AMP, and several other translations all communicate a removal of physical filth from the body, and they do not communicate that sins of the flesh is what is meant here. None of these translations also don't have the same wording for 2 Corinthians 7:1 to match 1 Peter 3:21. This leads one to believe that there is a difference in the Greek words which they translating. And indeed, a quick search on Blue Letter Bible reveals that this is the case.

The word for for "filth" that the KJV translates in 1 Peter 3:21 is "ryhpos", while the word for filth the KJV translates in 2 Corinthians 7:1 is "molysmos". Ryhpos occurs only once, while molysmos, and related words, occur eight times. So that's curious. We can reasonably conclude from this that the translators of the KJV didn't intend to communicate the same idea in 1 Peter 3:21 that is expressed in 2 Corinthians 7:1. If the Holy Spirit wanted to communicate the same thing, we should probably see the same word in Greek being used, but we don't, so it's probably not communicating the same thing. Thus, we have an equivocation fallacy on our hands.

For practical purposes, if my readers ever intend on having discussions with KJVO, if you bring this up, you'll probably face a few challenges. First, they will disregard what other translations say. They believe only the KJV is the inspired word of God, so simply quoting other translations would be begging the question, in their eyes. Second, they will attack your use of Greek. They will accuse you of being proud, or ask whether you have mastered the language (the average person hasn't) and so will say you don't know what you're talking about. But I don't think you need mastery of a language to know some things about that language. KJVO are weird, man.