TD....To be fair, this is an ambiguous sentence in the Greek and scholars have debated the matter on both sides. Of course, the Society always choses the render ambiguous texts in a way that conforms to their theology. Overall, the evidence favors Jesus being identified as God but the other possibility is not ruled out.
Here is Richard Bauckham's discussion of the verse in this commentary:
"Does this phrase refer to two persons ("our God and the Savior Jesus Christ") or one ("our God and Savior Jesus Christ")? The absence of the article before sótéros ("Savior") favors the latter, but is not decisive (cf. the similar problems in Titus 2:13, Jude 4). Some scholars therefore think the phrase intends to distinguish God and Jesus (Plumptre, Mayor, Windisch, Käsemann, 'Apologia,' 183 n.2), but a large majority think that theou ("God") is here used of Jesus. The following arguments favor this view:(1) Elsewhere in the letter the writer uses the similarly constructed phrase tou kuriou hémón kai sótéros Iésou Khristou ("our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ": 1:11, 3:18; cf. 2:20, 3:2), where there is no doubt that the whole phrase refers to Jesus Christ. When, however, this writer wishes to distinguish the two persons, in 1:2, the construction is different: tou theou kai Iésou tou kuriou hémón ("of God and Jesus our Lord"). (2) The doxology addressed to Christ in 3:18 is consistent with a Christology in which theos ("God") can be used of Christ. (3) Perhaps also the usage should be seen as part of the writer's use of Hellenistic religious language (Fornberg, Early Church, 143).
"The arguments against this view are not convincing: (1) The two persons are distinguished in 1:2. But the use of a binitarian formula in the salutation of a Christian letter was traditional, whereas in v. 1 the writer is probably composing more freely. (2) Käsemann ('Apologia,' 183 n.2) argues that since the stereotyped Christological formula (used in 1:11, 2:20, 3:2, 18) is 'our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,' the use of theou ("God") here must be intended to distinguish the persons. But there is no reason why variations on the stereotypical formula should not be used. (3) theos ("God") is rarely used of Jesus in the NT. There are a small number of certain instances (John 1:1, 20:28; Heb. 1:8-9; cf. John 1:18 v.1.) and a number of texts where theos may, with varying degrees of probability, be used of Jesus (Titus 2:13; 1 John 5:20; Rom. 9:5; 2 Thes. 1:12) (on these texts see V. Taylor, 'Does the New Testament Call Jesus 'God'?" in New Testament Essays [London: Epworth, 1970] 83-89; R. E. Brown, 'Does the New Testament Call Jesus God?' in Jesus God and Man [London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1968] 1-38; A. W. Wainwright, The Trinity in the New Testament [London, S.P.C.K., 1962] 53-74). Although not all of these instances are certain, the cumulative effect of their evidence must indicate that in the latter decades of the first century theos ("God") was occasionally being used of Jesus. Early extracanonical Christian literature shows that by the beginning of the second century the title was not uncommon (1 Clem. 2:1?; Ign. Eph. inscr., 1:1, 7:2, 18:2, 19:3; Trall. 7:1; Rom. 3:3; Smyrn. 10:1; Pol. Phil. 12:2; Ep. Apost. 3 (Ethiopic); Apoc Pet. E 16; cf. 2 Clem. 1:1). For Jesus Christ as "our God," as in 2 Pet. 1:1, see Ign. Eph. inscr., 18:2; Rom. 3:3, Pol. 8:3. Thus there is no improbability in 2 Peter's use of theos ("God") for Jesus, nor does the usage require a second-century date for the latter." (Richard Bauckham, Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 50, pp. 168-169).
