Greetings,
First the questioner has committed the Logical Fallacy of a Strawman argument. And then he is requiring an ignorance of his hearers.
He claims that JWs deny that Jesus is called God and so their doctrine is affected if Jesus is called God here. This is completely untrue. Anyone who claims that Witnesses have a problem with Jesus being called God is just being deceptive and must know nothing about our belief. Witnesses have no problem with Jesus being described as God since we know Jesus is called "God" several times in the Bible just as angels, the Devil and men are called God: Ex.7:1, Ps.8:5; 82:1,6, Jn.10:34.
So Witnesses have no problem with Jesus being called "God" here, because it does not contradict our belief at all.
What we do have a problem with is if someone claims that "because Jesus is called God, therefore he must be Almighty God." This is obviously a faulty interpretation because it would also mean that Satan, Moses, the whole nation of Israel and angels were also Almighty God. THEOS is not a unique title for the "Most High," so obviously, the very foundation of this logic is proven false. Interpreting this Scripture as meaning Jesus is equal to Almighty God also demands an ignorance of the way the term "God" was used in Bible times and it would contradict the immediate context of 2Peter as well as every explicit scripture which shows that Jesus was less than Almighty God at every point of his existence (Jn. 14:28; 20:17; Mk.13:32; 1Cor.15:27,28; Rev.3:2,12).
Jws have a problem with faulty interpretation, not with Jesus being called ‘God’. So the questioner first misrepresents Witnesses belief.
Second, the questioner implies that translations or interpretations that separate Jesus and God here have gone against an established rule of Greek grammar. But in doing this he demands an ignorance of his hearers because he does not inform readers that many translators and scholars disagree about whether the "rule" applies to 2Pet.1:1 here or even its validity as a rule.
"The identity of reference of two substantives when under the vinculum of a common article"—is too slender to bear much weight especially when we take into consideration not only the general neglect of the article in these epistles but [also] the omission of it before [savior] in 1 Tim. 1:1, 4, 10.—The Expositor's Greek Testament, Vol. IV, p. 195.
"[In 2Peter 1:1, Savior Jesus Christ] may be taken by itself and separated from the preceding." —F. Blass and A. Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, trans. R. W. Funk, page 145
"The arguments and authorities in favour of the two renderings are very evenly divided...The fact that theos is never directly connected with Jesus Christ as an attribute, and the frequency with which God and Christ are presented as distinct from each other, as having a common relation to men in the economy of grace, makes it probable that the same kind of union is intended here, and not a presentation of Christ as God."—Vincent's; Tit.2:13
“Undoubtedly, as in Titus II. 13, in strict grammatical propriety, both theou and soteros would be predicated of Iesou Christou. But here as there, [Tit 2:13] considerations interpose, WHICH SEEM TO REMOVE THE STRICT GRAMMATICAL RENDERING OUT OF THE RANGE OF PROBABLE MEANING...Here, there is the additional consideration in favour of this view, that the Two are distinguished most plainly in the next verse:—Henry Alford, The Greek Testament, Vol. 4 (IV), p. 390.
“…It is plain then that the usage of the words ‘God our Saviour' does not make it probable that the whole expression here is to be applied to the Lord Jesus Christ.—Henry Alford, The Greek Testament, Vol. III, pp. 419.
One of the reasons grammarians are divided on whether Sharp’s rule applies here is because Sharp excluded proper names from his rule. The reason that an article does not appear in Greek before ‘our Saviour’ is because of the occurrence of the proper name “Jesus Christ” not because the writer wanted to equate Jesus with the preceding God. So many scholars conclude that 2Pet.1:1 and Tit.2:13 are not governed by Sharp’s rule.
The questioner keeps his hearers ignorant of these facts.
Further, while the questioner attempts to limit the interpretation of this verse to only “the grammatical aspect,” we can see that when it comes down to it grammar and syntax is not decisive here and cannot be the absolute basis for interpretation or translation.
"We must as grammarians leave the matter open."—Moulton's, Winer-Moulton, Tit.2:13; pg. 162, 156n
The context, theology and his habitual use of language of the writer must be relied upon and in ambiguous passages is even more important than grammar. Those who insist that Jesus is identified as God here will not admit this because neither the context nor the Bible supports such an interpretation.
Even more evidence is found in Peter’s word usage. In 1 and 2Peter Christ is referred to as "kyrios" 12 times but not *once* as "theos" (excluding 2Pet1:1) However, Peter refers to the Father as "theos" 45 times. So Peter and his readers very definitely knew who God was, and it was the Father. So in 2 Peter 1:1 his readers would have known he was referring to the Father only, especially since the name Jesus Christ occurred after Savior grammatically separating God from Jesus Christ.
This interpretation is proved correct by the very next verse (2:2) where God and Jesus are undeniably distinguished as two separate subjects.
Further evidence is found in the standard practice of the epistles to open with a reference to both God the Father and Jesus Christ. In fact, Peter in the opening statement of his first letter explicitly states that Jesus has a God over him (1Pt.1:3) as do many of the other epistles. (Cf. Rom.15:6; 1Cor.11:3; 15:24-28; 2Cor.1:3; Eph.1:17; Tit.1:4; Heb.1:9; 1Pt.1:3; Jn.20:17; Rev.1:6; 3:2,12).
So in conclusion, while Witnesses do not have a problem with Jesus being called God, anyone who insists that Jesus be equal or the same as God Almighty has a serious problem with Jesus being called God while at the same time being presented as less than and separate from another God.
Therefore, Witnesses and many other translations are justified if they choose to view 2Pet.1:1 as not calling Jesus God.
Anyone who tries to assert that 2Pet.1:1 is “clear, explicit, and unambiguous from the standpoint of the Greek grammar” is simply trying to fool his audience.
Yours,
Ron Rhoades