[votivesoul]

Some earlier English translations add an interesting component to the discussion, vis a vis, the AV text:

Bishops (1568),

Of whom are the fathers, of whom as concernyng the fleshe, Christe [came,] which is God, in all thynges to be praysed for euer. Amen.

Geneva (1587),

Of whome are the fathers, and of whome concerning the flesh, Christ came, who is God ouer all, blessed for euer, Amen.

Wycliffe (1382),

whose be the fathers, and of which is Christ after the flesh, that is God above all things, blessed into worlds. Amen.

Tyndale (1534),

whose also are the fathers and they of whome (as concernynge the flesshe) Christ came which is God over all thinges blessed for ever Amen.

And for comparison:

Reina-Valera (1602),

Cuyos son los padres, y de los cuales vino Cristo según la carne, el cual es Dios sobre todas las cosas, bendito por siempre. Amén.

Luther (1534),

welcher auch sind die Väter, und aus welchen Christus herkommt nach dem Fleisch, der da ist Gott über alles, gelobt in Ewigkeit. Amen.

Each of these well-known versions, all of which predate the KJV all leave no room for interpretation, that Christ is God. Even the Spanish and German read the same.

And yet, the KJV translators went a different route. Why? Surely, they were not ignorant of these earlier readings, especially Wycliffe's, Tyndale, the Bishop's, and Geneva?

For whatever reason, they elected to not leave the text unambiguous. They gave just enough room for more than one interpretation.

I submit that they were aware of the notoriously difficult nature of the verse in question and deciding to not presume one way or the other too forcefully, instead found a happy medium between the most common two understandings.