Project page. As I look at it, it says the project has been fully funded as of an hour ago.
The plan is to for the Bible to appear in a format that is more reader-friendly with respect to what we are used to, instead of the number-intruded, noted, small-print, heavy book printings we usually see.
The translation will be the editor's own emendation of the American Standard Version, with a few forms modernized (e.g. you for thou).
Nothing wrong with the KJV or the GNB as far as I'm concerned and all versions to date including American versions are available online.
Even for those who know the dated KJV language usage, there is one very significant problem: the Greek text on which it is based is not the closest to
the original manuscripts. The prevailing view at the time was that, if there were variations in the Greek manuscripts, one should take the reading
found in more manuscripts. An approach showing better scholarship is to give more weight to earlier manuscripts over later ones, and to give more
weight to readings from manuscripts found in several areas (so that their witness is independent; the "majority reading" approach might lead you to
adopt an error made in one area and recopied many, many times in that place, while other areas of Christendom might correct that mistake if you looked
at their written witness).
The GNB is a fairly loose translation, without the precision necessary for accurate study when you get down to the exact meanings of words and phrases.
I don't need more than I already have available. I can access other texts in addition to what I have. But enjoy!
If studying, I use an Amplified Bible with my favourite translation (King Jimmy). I've used regularly, in the past, Living Bible (paraphrase) and American Standard, both of which were good, but I keep returning to King James, and find that the translation, there to be as accurate as most, especially when compared with the Amplified or my Strongs Concordance. Each translation has its merits and the differences are, to the average reader, only minor, anyway.
All of it would not be admissible in a court of law as it is hearsay evidence.
That, RW, would be a good exercise for a debate. Obviously the expert witnesses on both sides of the argument would need to be carefully selected. It would be interesting to see. Whilst hearsay evidence is, supposedly, not admissible, it does play a part in all trials, even if it is not identified as such. "I said", "he said", "I replied", "his response". Strictly speaking the replies are hearsay. Chinese Whispers, anyone? Some of the testimony in the Bible is claimed to be a first hand account. Now, we accept court transcripts as "fact" which is actually a record of what the court recorder heard. The Biblical accounts that were claimed to be first hand, are, at least, one better than the court recorder in that they were written by the witness. (Yes, I'm splitting hairs here, but you get my drift).