˒ĕlōhı̂m: Plural Persons, or Majesty?

[ByGraceThroughFaith]

It should be obvious to you by now, if it wasn’t already, that your understanding of scripture doesn’t destroy the unitarianism of Jesus.

you don't even understand what Unitarianism is!

Definition of UNITARIAN

 

[Wrangler]

John 1:1 says you are WRONG!

John 1:1 is about God, not Jesus who is not introduced until v14.

Beyond that, The most anti-trinitarian book in the whole Bible, John also explicitly tells us at 20:31 that everything he wrote was to prove something other than the idea that Jesus is God; namely, that Jesus is God’s Anointed. So, it is funny to see trinitarians try to twist 1:1 – and indeed, his entire Gospel - to have a purpose other than what John explicitly stated is the purpose of his Gospel!

 

[ByGraceThroughFaith]

John 1:1 is about God, not Jesus who is not introduced until v14.

Beyond that, The most anti-trinitarian book in the whole Bible, John also explicitly tells us at 20:31 that everything he wrote was to prove something other than the idea that Jesus is God; namely, that Jesus is God’s Anointed. So, it is funny to see trinitarians try to twist 1:1 – and indeed, his entire Gospel - to have a purpose other than what John explicitly stated is the purpose of his Gospel!

You are forcing the Bible to support your nonsense!

John 1:1 is about TWO and not ONE Person. 1, "The Word", Who is Jesus Christ, Who is GOD. And "the GOD", the Father, Who He is WITH.

1 John 1:1-3

1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the Word of life— 2 the life was made manifest, and we have seen it, and testify to it and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was made manifest to us— 3 that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ.

It is very clear, that both passages say that Jesus Christ is THE WORD, and He is WITH God the Father, so they are DISTINCT!

John 1:18 in the best evidence reads: "No one has ever seen God; the Unique God, who is at the Father's side He has made Him known"

TWO DISTINCT Persons, Who are EQUALLY GOD

End of my discussion on this

 

[Matthias]

you don't even understand what Unitarianism is!

Definition of UNITARIAN

Do you deny that a person who’s God is only one person is, by definition, unitarian?

I don’t.

 

[Wrangler]

John 1:1 is about TWO and not ONE Person.

No, it’s about one being God. His word is an it, not a he. See v 6:60.

Not surprised you continue to ignore 20:31, that everything he wrote was to prove something other than the idea that Jesus is God; namely, that Jesus is God’s Anointed.

 

[Wrangler]

You are forcing the Bible to support your nonsense!

Pot meet kettle. Jesus explicitly said he has a God (John 20:17) and his God is the only God (John 17:3), which proves it is you who are attempting (and failing) to force the Bible to support your plural nonsense!

 

[ByGraceThroughFaith]

Pot meet kettle. Jesus explicitly said he has a God (John 20:17) and his God is the only God (John 17:3), which proves it is you who are attempting (and failing) to force the Bible to support your plural nonsense!

Jesus Christ The Only Wise God

 

[RedFan]

New here, and just stumbled across this forum, but thought I'd throw my $0.02 into the pot.

The post that has sparked this interesting debate observes that Gen. 1:1 uses a plural noun to denote God. From there the debate veers to trinitarian-vs-unitarian meanings, rather than to the key issue of how and when ancient Hebrew grammar uses plural nouns. To me, this is a threshold inquiry that must be resolved before the trinitarian-vs-unitarian debate can even get off the ground. Because if -- as I suspect -- the plural form was always used in ancient Hebrew only for denoting two or more distinct beings, then neither the Trinitarians (who view God as a single being, albeit with three hypostases) nor the Unitarians (who view God as simply One, in all respects) are going to be able to take refuge in the text.

I'm no scholar of ancient Hebrew. Maybe one will weigh in here, and potentially save you guys from veering off course.

(Full disclosure: I am a Trinitarian. I just think it is foolish to try to prove Trinitarianism through Gen. 1:1.)

 

[Matthias]

New here, and just stumbled across this forum, but thought I'd throw my $0.02 into the pot.

The post that has sparked this interesting debate observes that Gen. 1:1 uses a plural noun to denote God. From there the debate veers to trinitarian-vs-unitarian meanings, rather than to the key issue of how and when ancient Hebrew grammar uses plural nouns. To me, this is a threshold inquiry that must be resolved before the trinitarian-vs-unitarian debate can even get off the ground. Because if -- as I suspect -- the plural form was always used in ancient Hebrew only for denoting two or more distinct beings, then neither the Trinitarians (who view God as a single being, albeit with three hypostases) nor the Unitarians (who view God as simply One, in all respects) are going to be able to take refuge in the text.

I'm no scholar of ancient Hebrew. Maybe one will weigh in here, and potentially save you guys from veering off course.

(Full disclosure: I am a Trinitarian. I just think it is foolish to try to prove Trinitarianism through Gen. 1:1.)

Welcome!

Elohim is always plural in form but may be either singular or plural in meaning, depending on context. When used in reference to the one God it is always singular in meaning.

 

[Matthias]

you don't even understand what Unitarianism is!

Definition of UNITARIAN

I’m a licensed unitarian pastor, retired. I’m also an adjunct theology professor, retired.

Though it has no particular bearing on theological discussions, I’m also a civil / environmental engineer, retired.

I understand what unitarianism is. (Trinitarianism, too.)

 

[ByGraceThroughFaith]

I just think it is foolish to try to prove Trinitarianism through Gen. 1:1

then it looks like you have not fully read my OP? No Trinitarian would use Genesis 1:1 to show that God is the Trinity, as it only uses GOD, without any further description. The main point is that the Hebrew "˒ĕlōhım", is in the plural number, and masculine in gender. This, as I have shown in the OP, which I believe to be conclusive, shows that God is not a singular Person, as opponents of the Trinity argue. I have also shown, that either “˒ēl”, or “˒ĕlōah” would have been used in every instance for God, if He were a "single Person", these nouns are singular. No one who supports the view of a Unitarian God, has ever been able to answer this. I have also shown from my research into the Hebrew OT, that "˒ĕlōhım" does not have the meaning of "plural of majesty", which was invented by opponents of the Trinity. It is very clear that singular “˒ēl”, and “˒ĕlōah”, are used for God, when His "Majesty and Glory" are spoken of. Neither has any opponent of the Trinity, been able to answer with any success, why God is referred to in the OT, as “bō·wr·’e·ḵā”, CREATORS, which is in the plural number; and "‘ō·śa·yiḵ", MAKERS, also plural. Job 35:10 is very interesting, "“But none says, ‘Where is God my Maker, who gives songs in the night". Here, "God" is not "˒ĕlōhım", but “˒ĕlōah”; but "Maker", is “‘ō·śāy”, which is plural. Clearly the unity of the Godhead is seen in the use of the singular “˒ĕlōah”, and the plurality of Persons in the use of “‘ō·śāy”. Again, no opponent of the Trinity can expalin this! Genesis 1:26-27, shows the use of the pulral, when it says, "US Make...OUR Image...OUR Likeness", etc.

 

[ByGraceThroughFaith]

Welcome!

Elohim is always plural in form but may be either singular or plural in meaning, depending on context. When used in reference to the one God it is always singular in meaning.

yet another falsehood!

As I have said in my OP, here is a part that refutes this

But, in Job 35:10, it is very interesting, “But none says, ‘Where is God my Maker, who gives songs in the night”. Here “God” is “˒ĕlōah”, masculine, singular; and “Maker”, “‘ō·śāy”, masculine, plural, literally, “God my Makers”. Again, why the singular “˒ĕlōah”, with the plural, “‘ō·śāy”? It is clear from this, that “˒ĕlōah”, is used to show the “Essential Unity”; and “‘ō·śāy”, for the “Plurality of Persons”. There is not other explanation for this. We should have expected, the singular “‘ō·śê·nî”.

 

[ByGraceThroughFaith]

I’m a licensed unitarian pastor, retired. I’m also an adjunct theology professor, retired.

Though it has no particular bearing on theological discussions, I’m also a civil / environmental engineer, retired.

I understand what unitarianism is. (Trinitarianism, too.)

your "theology" is what is driving your misunderstanding of what the Bible actually does teach. I notice that those who reject the Trinity, will keep on banging on about a small selection of Bible verses, mostly taken out of its context, or abused in their application and plain meaning. Like the nonsense that some argue, that "The Word" in John 1:1 is not Jesus Christ! It is clear from John 1:14, 1 John 1:1-3 and Revelation 19:10-13, that it is JESUS CHRIST, and Him alone, Who is THE WORD. Yet, because John 1:1, is clear, that there are TWO distinct Persons Who are equally called GOD, it is objected to in the most foolish of ways, like the Jehovah's Witnesse do, by saying that "the Word was a god", which they PRETEND is what the Greek grammar says! Even the Unitarian, Dr George Noyes, is honest enough to translate the Greek here, "and the Word was God"! John 1:18 in the original and best textual evidence, "God no one has ever seen, the Unique God", destroys the false teaching of Unitarianism!

 

[ByGraceThroughFaith]

Since Isaiah 9:6 does not refer to Jesus, it is not clear at all that Jesus is mighty God.

Isaiah 9:6, in your mind does not refer to Jesus Christ, because if you did accept that it does, then your theology is finished! The earlier Jewish scholars, said that this passage refers to The Messiah, as do the Jewish Targum, from the 1st century.

Targum Jonathan, This Aramaic paraphrase dates from the 1st century A.D. or earlier.

“The prophet said to the house of David, For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given, and he has taken the law upon himself to keep it. His name is called from eternity wonderful, the mighty God who liveth to eternity, the Messiah whose peace shall be great upon us in his days.” (Targum Jonathan on Isaiah 9:6)

“And there was called His name from of old, Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty God, He who lives for ever, the Messiah, in whose days peace shall increase upon us.” (J. F. Stenning, The Targum of Isaiah. Oxford, 1949)

“Thus rabbi Jose, of Galilee, says, ‘The name of the Messiah is שׁלום shâlôm, as is said in Isa 9:6, “Father of Eternity, Prince of Peace.” ‘Ben Sira (fol. 40, of the Amsterdam Edition, 1679)” (Barnes Commentary)

Jesus Christ Himself said that He is The Messiah, in John 4:25-26, "The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things. Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am he".

Now show that Jesus Christ is not the Son in Isaiah 9:6?

 

[Matthias]

yet another falsehood!

As I have said in my OP, here is a part that refutes this

But, in Job 35:10, it is very interesting, “But none says, ‘Where is God my Maker, who gives songs in the night”. Here “God” is “˒ĕlōah”, masculine, singular; and “Maker”, “‘ō·śāy”, masculine, plural, literally, “God my Makers”. Again, why the singular “˒ĕlōah”, with the plural, “‘ō·śāy”? It is clear from this, that “˒ĕlōah”, is used to show the “Essential Unity”; and “‘ō·śāy”, for the “Plurality of Persons”. There is not other explanation for this. We should have expected, the singular “‘ō·śê·nî”.

“2. Nouns with Plural Form Only

The following nouns are found in plural form only. They are plural in form but may be singular or plural in meaning.

God elohim
mercy …
life …
face (m. or f.) …
water …
sky, heaven …”

(Menahem Mansoor, Biblical Hebrew Step By Step, Vol. 1. Second Edition, “Dual Number,” p. 125)

Elohim (plural in form, singular in meaning) - God, god

Elohim (plural in form, plural in meaning) - gods

If you insist that elohim is always plural in meaning then when the subject is the one true deity of Israel your readers must insist that you translate it in the plural in English - the gods (elohim, plural in form, plural in meaning) of Israel.

There are no English translations which render elohim as plural in meaning when the subject is the one true deity of Israel.

The one true deity of Israel is the God (elohim, plural in form, singular in meaning) of Israel. All English translations of the Bible acknowledge this.

 

[Matthias]

your "theology" is what is driving your misunderstanding of what the Bible actually does teach. I notice that those who reject the Trinity, will keep on banging on about a small selection of Bible verses, mostly taken out of its context, or abused in their application and plain meaning. Like the nonsense that some argue, that "The Word" in John 1:1 is not Jesus Christ! It is clear from John 1:14, 1 John 1:1-3 and Revelation 19:10-13, that it is JESUS CHRIST, and Him alone, Who is THE WORD. Yet, because John 1:1, is clear, that there are TWO distinct Persons Who are equally called GOD, it is objected to in the most foolish of ways, like the Jehovah's Witnesse do, by saying that "the Word was a god", which they PRETEND is what the Greek grammar says! Even the Unitarian, Dr George Noyes, is honest enough to translate the Greek here, "and the Word was God"! John 1:18 in the original and best textual evidence, "God no one has ever seen, the Unique God", destroys the false teaching of Unitarianism!

My stance is that in order for a theology to be valid every passage of scripture bearing on the subject of who the one true God is must align with Jesus’ theology.

 

[Matthias]

“1. The one God. (a) theos is the most frequent designation of God in the NT. Belief in the one, only, and unique God (Matt. 23:9; Rom. 3:30; 1 Cor. 8:4,6; Gal. 3:20; 1 Tim. 2:5; Jas. 2:19) is an established part of Christian tradition. Jesus himself made the fundamental confession of Jud. his own and expressly quoted the Shema (Deut. 6:4-5; see Mk. 12:29-30; cf. Matt. 22:37; Lk. 10:27). This guaranteed continuity between the old and the new covenants. The God whom Christians worship is the God of the fathers (Acts 3:13; 5:30; 22:14), the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Acts 3:13; 7:32; cf. Matt. 22:32; Mk. 12:26; Lk. 20:37), the God of Israel (Matt. 15:31; Lk. 1:68; Acts 13:17), and the God of Jesus Christ 2 Cor. 1:3; Eph. 1:3; 1 Pet. 1:3).”

(New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Abridged Edition, p. 244)

The NT Greek equivalent of elohim (Heb. plural in form, singular in meaning) is theos.

The NT Greek equivalent of elohim (Heb. plural in form, plural in meaning) is theoi.

The source I’m quoting points out that the NT Greek word used for the one God is theos.

The one God - the God of the fathers, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of Israel, and the God of Jesus Christ - is theos (singular) / elohim (plural in form, singular in meaning) not theoi (plural) / elohim (plural in form, plural in meaning).

 

[Wrangler]

Isaiah 9:6, in your mind does not refer to Jesus Christ, because if you did accept that it does, then your theology is finished!

It goes to show how weak the argument is to make such wild assertions. Excerpts from The Trinity Delusion: Isaiah 9:6 (angelfire.com)

The English translation "Mighty God" is a translation of the Hebrew words EL GIBBOR. Another significant problem for Trinitarians is the translation of the Hebrew word EL. It is often claimed that EL is the equivalent Hebrew word for the Greek word theos and English word "God." This is obviously wrong. The Greeks did not use the word theos to refer to the might/strength of men mountains and big trees. English speakers don't use the word "God" to refer to the might/strength of men, mountains, and big trees. However, the Hebrews did use the word EL to refer to the might/strength of men, mountains, and big trees (see Genesis 31:29; Deuteronomy 28:32; Nehemiah 5:5; Psalm 36:6; 80:10; Proverbs 2:27; Ezekiel 31:11; 32:21; Micah 2:1). This is because EL is not equivalent to the English word "God." EL has a much wider scope of meaning than Greek theos or English "God." The Greek word theos and English word "God/god" are only used to refer to deities.

Even if we suppose the common Trinitarian translation is correct, there are still more problems. In the Bible, angels and men are called elohim. The judges of Israel were called elohim. See Exodus 21:6; 22:8-9; Psalm 82:1,6. Angels are identified as Elohim. See the Hebrew's writers endorsement of this translation of Elohim at Hebrews 2:7. See also Psalm 45:6-7.

Human judges and angels are called Elohim because they are representatives of God. As representatives of God they are treated as if they are representations of God. This is all based on the Hebrew shaliach concept, the concept of a person's agent acting on his behalf. God's shaliach, or agent, is also called Elohim. If a similar situation is occurring at Isaiah 9:6, it then means the humanly born child-son is not God Himself but is called by this name because he is God's representative shaliach. Indeed, Jesus is not the "Eternal Father" but is the Father's representative who came, as he himself declared, "in the name of my Father."

Many scholars have recognized the extreme unlikelihood that Isaiah the prophet would identify a humanly born child as "Mighty God, Eternal Father." One would need to accept that Isaiah would be prepared to refer to a human child as the God of Israel, his God, resulting in an highly implausibe position. Isaiah is also referring to the birth of a son yet the Trinitarian interpretation expects one to suppose this child "son" is the everlasting "Father." Not only so, Trinitarians themselves insist that the Trinity had not yet been revealed. If the Trinity had not yet been revealed, how then could Isaiah be referring to this human Messiah as God?
​

 

[ByGraceThroughFaith]

It goes to show how weak the argument is to make such wild assertions. Excerpts from The Trinity Delusion: Isaiah 9:6 (angelfire.com)

The English translation "Mighty God" is a translation of the Hebrew words EL GIBBOR. Another significant problem for Trinitarians is the translation of the Hebrew word EL. It is often claimed that EL is the equivalent Hebrew word for the Greek word theos and English word "God." This is obviously wrong. The Greeks did not use the word theos to refer to the might/strength of men mountains and big trees. English speakers don't use the word "God" to refer to the might/strength of men, mountains, and big trees. However, the Hebrews did use the word EL to refer to the might/strength of men, mountains, and big trees (see Genesis 31:29; Deuteronomy 28:32; Nehemiah 5:5; Psalm 36:6; 80:10; Proverbs 2:27; Ezekiel 31:11; 32:21; Micah 2:1). This is because EL is not equivalent to the English word "God." EL has a much wider scope of meaning than Greek theos or English "God." The Greek word theos and English word "God/god" are only used to refer to deities.

Even if we suppose the common Trinitarian translation is correct, there are still more problems. In the Bible, angels and men are called elohim. The judges of Israel were called elohim. See Exodus 21:6; 22:8-9; Psalm 82:1,6. Angels are identified as Elohim. See the Hebrew's writers endorsement of this translation of Elohim at Hebrews 2:7. See also Psalm 45:6-7.

Human judges and angels are called Elohim because they are representatives of God. As representatives of God they are treated as if they are representations of God. This is all based on the Hebrew shaliach concept, the concept of a person's agent acting on his behalf. God's shaliach, or agent, is also called Elohim. If a similar situation is occurring at Isaiah 9:6, it then means the humanly born child-son is not God Himself but is called by this name because he is God's representative shaliach. Indeed, Jesus is not the "Eternal Father" but is the Father's representative who came, as he himself declared, "in the name of my Father."

Many scholars have recognized the extreme unlikelihood that Isaiah the prophet would identify a humanly born child as "Mighty God, Eternal Father." One would need to accept that Isaiah would be prepared to refer to a human child as the God of Israel, his God, resulting in an highly implausibe position. Isaiah is also referring to the birth of a son yet the Trinitarian interpretation expects one to suppose this child "son" is the everlasting "Father." Not only so, Trinitarians themselves insist that the Trinity had not yet been revealed. If the Trinity had not yet been revealed, how then could Isaiah be referring to this human Messiah as God?
​

Isaiah 10.21 also has

El Gibbor

 

[Ronald David Bruno]

In all of these examples, it is clear that both “˒ēl”, and “˒ĕlōah”, are used to describe “Majesty”, and “Greatness”, and “Excellence”, of The One True God of the Old Testament. So why would the plural “˒ĕlōhı̂m”, be used, for what the singular already does?

It is clear that the use of the plural “˒ĕlōhı̂m”, is not to describe the “Majesty”, and “Greatness”, and “Excellence”, of The One True God of the Old Testament, which is already done by the singular, “˒ēl”, and “˒ĕlōah”. There is also clear evidence in the Old Testament, to show that the plural “˒ĕlōhı̂m”, is used because The One True God of the Old Testament, is not One Person, Who is the Father.

If, as those who argue for Unitarianism, God is One Person, there can be no doubt, that Genesis 1:1, would have been written, “bərē’šîṯ bārā’ ’ĕl/˒ĕlōah ’ēṯ haššāmayim wə’ēṯ hā’āreṣ”, where the singular, “˒ēl”, or “˒ĕlōah”, would have been used instead of the plural “˒ĕlōhı̂m”; this would also agree with the singular verb, “bā·rā (Created)”. In the Book of Isaiah, we read, “Thus says God (hā·’êl, lit, The God), the LORD (yehôvâh), Who Created the heavens and stretched them out, Who spread out the earth and what comes from it, Who gives breath to the people on it and spirit to those who walk in it” (42:5). In referring to the Creation of the entire universe, as in Genesis 1:1, Isaiah uses the singular “’êl”, and not the plural “˒ĕlōhı̂m”.

From Genesis 1:2, onwards, we have a more detailed Account of the Creation of “the heavens and the earth”.

When we get to verses 26 and 27, it becomes clear why the plural “˒ĕlōhı̂m”, and not the singular “˒ēl”, or “˒ĕlōah”, is used in verse 1, and in over 2600 times in the Old Testament.

“Then God said, “Let Us Make man in Our Image, according to Our Likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”. So God Created man in His Own Image; in the Image of God He created him; male and female He created them”

In verse 26, we have “˒ĕlōhı̂m” (mas. plural), as the Speaker, Who says, “let US make (na-‘ă-śeh, plural) man, in OUR Image (bəṣaləmēnû, plural) , according to OUR Likeness (kiḏəmûṯēnû, plural)

It must be asked, if God were Unitarian, then surely we would have expected verse 26 to read:

“Then God said, I have Made man in My Image, according to My Likeness”

In verse 27 it goes on to say, “So God (ĕlōhı̂m) Created man in His Own Image (bə·ṣal·mōw) ; in the Image (bə·ṣe·lem) of God (ĕlōhı̂m) He created him”. As we read in Genesis 9:6, “for in the Image of God (bə·ṣe·lem ˒ĕlōhı̂m) made He man”. Why the plural in verse 26?

Those who reject the Plurality of Persons in “˒ĕlōhı̂m”, have suggested, as in the Jewish Palestinian Targum, “And the Lord said to the angels who ministered before Him, who had been created in the second day of the creation of the world, Let us make man in Our image, in Our likeness”. However, in verse 27, it reads, “And the Lord created man in His likeness: In the image of the Lord He created him”. In verse 26, God is supposed to be talking to His created “angels”, that He was going to Create humans, in OUR (God and His angels), Image and Likeness. But, in verse 27, and 9:6, it is clear, that humans are Created in the Image and Likeness of God, with no mention of the “angels”! Some have even suggested that God is here talking to His “divine council”. This is no more than human speculation, as there is not a single verse in the entire Old Testament, that even hints humans are Created in the Image and Likeness of God and His angels!

It is interesting, that in another Jewish Targum, The Jerusalem,verse 27 reads, “And the Word (Memra) of the Lord created man in His likeness, in the likeness of the presence of the Lord He created him, the male and his yoke-fellow He created them”. In the Targums, the “Memra of Yahweh”, is a Person, and Himself also Yahweh. Clear that the Jews themselves admit to Creation by more than One Person.

Some quote Malachi 2:10, as their “proof”, that the Father alone is the Creator; “Have we not all one Father (’e·ḥāḏ ’āḇ) ? Has not one God (’e·ḥāḏ ’êl, sing) Created (bə·rā·’ā·nū) us? Why then are we faithless to one another, profaning the covenant of our fathers?”

Similarly, in Isaiah 51:13, “and have forgotten the LORD (Yehôvâh), your Maker (‘ō·śe·ḵā, sing), Who stretched out the heavens and laid the foundations of the earth”

But, in Job 35:10, it is very interesting, “But none says, ‘Where is God my Maker, who gives songs in the night”. Here “God” is “˒ĕlōah”, masculine, singular; and “Maker”, “‘ō·śāy”, masculine, plural, literally, “God my Makers”. Again, why the singular “˒ĕlōah”, with the plural, “‘ō·śāy”? It is clear from this, that “˒ĕlōah”, is used to show the “Essential Unity”; and “‘ō·śāy”, for the “Plurality of Persons”. There is not other explanation for this. We should have expected, the singular “‘ō·śê·nî”.

This is also seen in Isaiah 54:5, “For your Maker (‘ō·śa·yiḵ, plural, your Makers) is your Husband (ḇō·‘ă·la·yiḵ, plural, your Husbands), the LORD of Hosts is His Name (šə·mōw, sing); and the Holy One of Israel is your Redeemer, the God of the whole earth he is called”. Why not as in Isaiah 51:13, where we read the singular?

Likewise, in Ecclesiastes 12:1, “Remember also your Creator in the days of your youth”

Here “your Creator”, “bō·wr·’e·ḵā”, is the masculine, plural, “your Creators”. Why the plural?

Genesis 46:3, “Then he said, “I am God (hā·’êl) , the God (ĕ·lō·hê) of your father”

Literally, “I am the God, the Gods”

Exodus 20:5, “You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the LORD your God am a jealous God”

“’ā·nō·ḵî Yehôvâh ’ĕ·lō·he·ḵā ’êl qan·nā”, literally, “I Yahweh your Gods God jealous” (also Deuteronomy 4:24, etc)

2 Samuel 22:32, “For who is God (’êl), but the LORD (Yehôvâh)? And who is a Rock, except our God (’ĕ·lō·hê·nū) ?”

“God...Yahweh...Gods”

The singular ’êl, in these, and other passages, can only denote the “Essential Unity” of God; and the plural “˒ĕlōhı̂m”, the “Plurality of Persons”.

There is also clear evidence in the Old Testament, of more than One Person Who is The Creator.

In Job chapter 38 we read, “Then the Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said...Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?” (verses 1, 4)

And Isaiah 44:6, “This is what the LORD says, He who is the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of armies: ‘I am the first and I am the last, And there is no god besides Me”

Here we have “Yehôvâh”, as The Creator, and the Eternal God.

In Isaiah 48:12-13, it says:

“Listen to Me, Jacob, and Israel, the one called by Me: I am He; I am the first, I am also the last. My own hand founded the earth, and My right hand spread out the heavens; when I summoned them, they stood up together”

verse 16 reads,

“Approach Me and listen to this. From the beginning I have not spoken in secret; from the time anything existed, I was there.” And now the Lord God has sent Me and His Spirit”

Here the Speaker (1st Person, singular), Who is Himself The Creator and the Eternal God, says, that “’ă·ḏō·nāy Yehôvâh”, is SENDING (šə·lā·ḥa·nî , 3rd person, Another Person) Himself and the Spirit (wə·rū·ḥōw 3rd person, Another Person). Verse 17 confirms Who the Speaker is, “Thus saith the LORD, thy Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel; I am the LORD thy God which teacheth thee to profit, which leadeth thee by the way that thou shouldest go”

In Proverbs 9:10, we read, “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, and the knowledge of the Holy One is insight”

“the LORD”, “Yehôvâh”, masculine, singular

“the Holy One”, “qə·ḏō·šîm”, masculine, plural, “the Holy Ones”

Proverbs 30:3, “I have not learned wisdom, nor have I knowledge of the Holy One”

“the Holy One”, “qə·ḏō·šîm”, masculine, plural, “the Holy Ones”

The evidence from the Old Testament is overwhelmingly against God being Unitarian. It is abundantly clear to those who want to know what the Bible really teaches, that “˒ĕlōhı̂m” is not a single Person.

Excellent study on Elohim
... you left no stone unturned.
I would just support that view with scripture ised in the same context:
Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness ..." Gen. 1:26
This verse has been misinterpreted as God including the angels as if they were involved or present looking over His shoulder or so to speak. Angels don't create life. Satan and his angels create confusion, doubts, lies and havoc.
Then you have Genesis 3:22 as well.