Nigel,
It would be a shame for the Project to run aground by
interpreting rather than merely transliterating
baptizo! Paedos and Credos both could rally around the latter method. They could argue the merits of their cases. But you short-circuit the debate with an unequal balance, and lose half the church.
John 1.25 and they asked him, “Then why do you* immerse if you* are not Anointed, or Elijah, or that prophet?”
One of the things that made the NIV notorious was its
interpretation resulting in "the sinful nature" rather than "the flesh".
Why omit the definite article before "Anointed"? Tyndale omitted it, but when he translated "Christ" it made sense. (And Tyndale did transliterate baptizo.)
Steve