Baptism vs Immersion part 1

One of the attacks I have seen against the King James Bible, and its translators, revolves around the word baptism and how it should have been translated as immersed.

One such place where this claim can be made is on a Church of Christ website called The Interactive Bible where in a section on "errors" in the KJV they claim that baptism is a indisputable, universally recognized error in the KJV and say:

immersion, because sprinkling was the mode of baptism in 1611AD, they jelly-fished out and transliterated the Greek "baptizo" but refused to translate it.

Yet I don't think they really feel that the use of baptism is realy an error since on their How to be saved page, for step #5 it reads:

Baptism by immersion for remission of sins

And further down on this page they make the statement:

We are born again at our water Baptism!

So really now, just who is it that has jelly-fished out? The facts show the double standard of the Interactive Bible people proves they are the ones who jelly-fished out.

There is also the website for the New Covenant Christian Groups where they have a page called "King James Only HOKEY" by Bob Ross who is notorious for his attacks on the Bible. In Mr. Ross' article he makes the claim:

More in Part 2.

BY  "ANGLICIZING",  OR  "TRANSLITERATING"  THE  GREEK  WORD  "BAPTIZO",  ITS  REAL  MEANING  ("IMMERSION")  WAS  VEILED.

Yet, as with the example above, the New Covenant Christian Groups website shows the typical double standard since they have a page on water baptism.