explain why the AV is not a ‘Christ is God’ apposition text

Steven Avery

It is rather simple when laid out.

They left it out because it wasn't what they meant. The addition of "is Christ" dramatically changes the meaning of what they wrote.

Romans 9:5 (AV)
Whose are the fathers,
and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came,
who is over all,
God blessed for ever.

Actually, that is the natural English reading.

Attributes of Christ, who is:
1) over all
2) God blessed for ever

This is how the phrases are laid out in the AV.
Both phrases end with a comma, in a section where Christ is described, they are equivalent grammatically.

If the punctuation were the same, and “Angel” was the word instead of God, even you would see your grammatical foible and failure. (Although some groups see Christ as Gabriel, so they might similarly claim apposition by their doctrinal presupposition glasses!)

The reason for reading the AV as an apposition by commentators is a trivial bandwagon fallacy. Ignoring the doctrinal difficulties (see Thomas Hubeart), the commentators, as usual, are fishing for verses that give them “Christ is God.” By mangling the AV interpretation in this way, they can say to Socinians, Unitarians and others “aha, look, the NT directly says Christ is God”. Without proper nuance or context, like you have in 1 Timothy 3:16, “God was manifest in the flesh” (AV-TR).