When he wanted to say "flesh", he said "flesh". Why all of a sudden "water" refer to "flesh"? This is absurd, especially for someone who professes that he gets his understanding form the scripture alone.
He explains Baptism is a figure and the water doesn't save anything, it only represents what already has been saved.
He says, again, "baptism being of the like [water] form, now saveth you also", in direct contradiction to your fantasies.
Not when it explains the question that Nicodemos raises about going back into his mother's womb to be 'born again'.
There is such a thing as reading a verse in context with other verses.
The womb is in view as the first birth that Christ talks about and that first birth deals with coming from water.
The second birth comes from the Spirit and is spiritual not fleshly.
He explains Baptism is a figure and the water doesn't save anything, it only represents what already has been saved. He says, again, "baptism being of the like [water] form, now saveth you also", in direct contradiction to your fantasies.
Peter says that it is a figure of what happened to Noah and Noah was not put into any water.
Those who were put into water were drowned.
Noah was in the Ark (a type of Christ), which is what water Baptism represents, being identified with the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. (Rom.6:4,Col.2:12)
The water represents death and it has no purifying abilities, as Peter states very clearly (1Pe.3:21)