I came across the 2001 Translation - An American English Bible yesterday & am impressed with it for a number of reasons:]aion, aionios, etc aren’t translated eternal, everlasting, etc. (they explain why )/ ]]OT based on the Septuagint (why this is a really good thing )!/ ]]They are trying hard to be transparent & to explain why they’ve translated the way they have/ ]]They try to avoid “religious” words like soul, spirit, cross, Hell, Satan, Devil, angel, Christ/ ]
This Bible isn’t authorized by, nor does it represent the views of any religious group. Its content is the work of more than sixty online contributors and the dedicated efforts of a few translators and editors who have spent more than twenty-thousand hours (to date) in this enormous project, and whose only interest is in helping others to understand what the Bible truly says.
Since it is in the public domain , this English Bible, its Notes, and its Commentaries that are original to this work may be copied, used, and distributed as you may wish.
No memberships, sales, or donations are being sought here. However, we are open to suggestions , recommendations, and corrections; for, its online format allows for needed changes (nothing is set in stone).
I need to read more of it but so far it looks promising.
Update: I’m concerned about it’s JW leaning in a few passages, however it’s still an interesting translation for the above reasons, so I’ve attached the e-Sword Bible module so you can evaluate it for yourself: 2001.bblx (7.01 MB)2001translation.com/JOHN.htm#_Is_Jesus_God ? to the New English Translation note on John 1:1 , which they translate as “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was fully God.”
Or “and what God was the Word was.” Colwell’s Rule is often invoked to support the translation of θεός (qeos) as definite (“God”) rather than indefinite (“a god”) here. However, Colwell’s Rule merely permits, but does not demand, that a predicate nominative ahead of an equative verb be translated as definite rather than indefinite. Furthermore, Colwell’s Rule did not deal with a third possibility, that the anarthrous predicate noun may have more of a qualitative nuance when placed ahead of the verb. A definite meaning for the term is reflected in the traditional rendering “the word was God.” From a technical standpoint, though, it is preferable to see a qualitative aspect to anarthrous θεός in John 1:1c (ExSyn 266-69). Translations like the NEB, REB, and Moffatt are helpful in capturing the sense in John 1:1c, that the Word was fully deity in essence (just as much God as God the Father). However, in contemporary English “the Word was divine” (Moffatt) does not quite catch the meaning since “divine” as a descriptive term is not used in contemporary English exclusively of God. The translation “what God was the Word was” is perhaps the most nuanced rendering, conveying that everything God was in essence, the Word was too. This points to unity of essence between the Father and the Son without equating the persons. However, in surveying a number of native speakers of English, some of whom had formal theological training and some of whom did not, the editors concluded that the fine distinctions indicated by “what God was the Word was” would not be understood by many contemporary readers. Thus the translation “the Word was fully God” was chosen because it is more likely to convey the meaning to the average English reader that the Logos (which “became flesh and took up residence among us” in John 1:14 and is thereafter identified in the Fourth Gospel as Jesus) is one in essence with God the Father. The previous phrase, “the Word was with God,” shows that the Logos is distinct in person from God the Father.
And the Word was fully God. John’s theology consistently drives toward the conclusion that Jesus, the incarnate Word, is just as much God as God the Father. This can be seen, for example, in texts like John 10:30 (“The Father and I are one”), 17:11 (“so that they may be one just as we are one”), and 8:58 (“before Abraham came into existence, I am”). The construction in John 1:1c does not equate the Word with the person of God (this is ruled out by 1:1b, “the Word was with God”); rather it affirms that the Word and God are one in essence.
