Baptism vs Immersion part 3

Let's continue our look at the issue between the wrods baptism and immersion to see if the KJV translators did jelly-fish out, made a new English word and vieled the real meaning of baptizo.

In our last entry we saw where Eddie Lowen in a sermon on the baptism of Jesus accused the KJB translators of making an English word, thus giving us the rendering of the word baptism instead of immersion in the NIV. We saw Bob Ross accuse the KJV translators of jelly-fishing out. yet, both of these men use the word baptism.

West Side Christian Church on their Next Steps page sates:

BAPTISM - The Bible teaches all believers to demonstrate faith in Christ by being baptized into Him. We are often asked, "How?" The New Testament reveals that baptism depicts the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ, which is why we baptize by immersion.

Let's move on to some documented facts that pre-date King James Bible.

The Tyndale's New Testament of 1534 uses baptised.
The Geneva Bible of 1560 and the 1602 revision also uses baptized.
The Bishops Bible of 1568 uses baptized.
The Geneva Bible of 1587 also uses baptized.

For examples from 4 Bibles that pre-date the KJB and at Matthew 3:13 they all used the word baptized. So much for the claim the the KJB translators made a new word.

There are also documented facts that show that Shakespeare in Henry V (1599), Othello (1604) and Romeo and Juliet (1595) used the words baptism and baptiz'd. These works predate the 1611 KJB.

More examples in our next post.So, if the use of the word baptism is wrong, why is used by West Side?