In the 1611 edition of the King James Bible, the word “is” (in the phrase “that is”) was not italicized, but it is other editions. It is still most likely that the deletion of “that is” was occasioned by the italicized word “is” and that the word “that” had to be removed along with it. There is no damage done to the sense of the verse with that change. There is no particular reason for the deletion of the last phrase. A more interesting change is that the KJV designates “gods” while Abinadi specifies “God.” This change may be another simplification measure, but it may also be Abinadi’s deliberate adaptation to his trial before the priests. Because they were building new religious elements on the fundamental law of Moses, they probably had not attempted to alter with its most basic belief in one God, even if the people included converts from polytheistic cultures. In fact, such converts are typically even more protective of their new religious principles than lifetime believers. Thus, it seems unlikely that the priests of Noah had attempted to introduce new gods. Rather they had probably reinterpreted the law to effectively deny the salvific role of that one God. (See “Excursus: Religion of the Nehors,” following Alma 1.)
Because Abinadi’s defense of the Messiah accuses them of departing from that belief, he may have deliberately shifted to the singular form (“God”) rather than quoting the original (“gods”) because it would be easy for the priests to deny that they worshipped multiple gods. However, Abinadi’s point is not polytheism but a perversion of the worship of the One God.