Trinitarians and others claim that the Hebrew noun ‘Elohim’, rendered ‘God’ (Strong’s #430) in the first clause of Genesis 1:26, denotes more than one God Person (typically thought of or explained as “3 in 1” or “2 in 1” as in “one” family). In support they point to the second clause of verse 26, “Let us make man in our image”, being plural. It is true that in both English and Hebrew this second clause contains the plural subject ‘us’ and that this governs the plural verb ‘make’- But these are not governed by ‘Elohim’ (God) of the first clause. What is not realized, or otherwise mentioned in this issue is that in the first clause, “And God said”, ‘Elohim’ governs the singular Hebrew verb ‘’amer’ (Strong’s # 559), which is rendered ‘said’ in English. So linguistically there is no basis for claiming that ‘Elohim’ denotes, represents, or contains more than one God Person (entity).
It is also claimed that the Hebrew ‘Elohim’ is a uniplural or collective noun and that such nouns (e.g. the English noun ‘crowd’) often govern singular verbs. This claim contradicts leading Hebrew grammars, which claim that throughout the OT and when referring to the true God, the Hebrew noun ‘Elohim’ behaves as a singular noun, and governs only singular verbs, singular adjectives and singular pronouns. And only when ‘elohim’ refers to a number of pagan gods or humans (e.g. judges), that it behaves as a plural noun; and then governs plural verbs, plural adjectives and plural pronouns. So grammatically ‘Elohim’ is never a collective (uniplural) noun. That in reference to the true God, the noun ‘Elohim’ is singular, is well illustrated in Genesis 1:29, where this noun governs the singular pronoun ‘I’.
Here follows a selection of Hebrew grammars from which these claims may be further verified: Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar edited and enlarged by E. Kautzsch, 2nd English edition by A.E. Cowley, paragraph 124 (g); Weingreen’s Hebrew Grammar under ‘God’ in its English-Hebrew vocabulary; C.L Seow’s A Grammar for Biblical Hebrew, 1992 printing, the vocabulary on page 19; James D Martin’s Davidson’s Introductory Grammar, 27th edition, 1995 reprint, page 52.
So grammatically, too, there is no justification for claiming that in Genesis 1:26 ‘God’ (Elohim) denotes more than one God Person. Indeed throughout the OT ‘Elohim’ always denotes just one God Person. Let’s now examine the claim that in Genesis 1:26 ‘Elohim’ denotes more than one God Person from a biblical basis.
From the Hebrew for verse 27 it may be seen that the Hebrew noun ‘Elohim’ (God) again governs a singular Hebrew verb (’created’). But even more importantly, that ‘Elohim’ also governs the Hebrew singular pronouns ‘His’ (that is God’s) and ‘He’ (God). Note that verse 27 does not say that ‘they’ created Adam in ‘their’ image, but that ‘He’ created Adam in His image! So verse 27 declares that one God created Adam and that He did so in His image. Not two or more Gods but only one God created Adam.
Verse 27, through the two singular clauses, “So God created man in His own image” and “in the image of God created He him”, twice states that one God created Adam. From Genesis 41:32 it may be inferred that this repetition emphasizes certainty.
That only one God Person spoke in verse 26 and created Adam in verse 27, is further confirmed by verse 29. In verse 29 ‘God’ (Elohim) uses the first person singular personal pronoun “I”, in the phrase, “And God said, ‘Behold, I have given you every herb…’ “. Had two or more God Persons created Adam, they might have said: “We have given you every herb…”. Ignoring the necessities of language rules of grammar some still say that this “God” is a family of two and that as such only “one” of the two Gods actually did the hands on creating, but at the bequest of the other- of the two Gods. Therefore, it is reasoned, the use of a singular pronoun simply reflects the overall view that there is still only “one” God, but with two distinct entities within the one. The tragedy of this is the denial of the proper use of the language- and specifically here in Genesis, along with the assumption that everything else in scripture that does not lend itself to this premise must somehow bend and be forced into compliance with this premise. There is no grammatical basis that can be produced to support this premise, which nevertheless seems to flourish in the minds of the adherents to this tenet of which I was once one, too. Without scriptural basis, other than- that is the way it must be for this premise to exist, the very premise is left to be nothing more than conjecture. If the premise is true, then the “proof” must come from elsewhere, as nothing in Genesis can provide this “proof.” Equivocation may be the most culpable in the creation of this tenet, and yet be the least recognized as such.
from http://www.israelofgod.org/genesis1.htm
It appears to be a problem with the English translation rather than the intent.
Well, I don't expect a Jewish source to concede what Trinitarian Christians believe about Jehovah. Their scriptures, and ours' of course, say otherwise. Take, for example, the "Shamah" of Deuteronomy 6:4
Hear O Israel: The LORD our God is one Lord.
shama` Yisra'el Yĕhovah 'elohiym 'echad Yĕhovah
The word "echad" has the meaning of joined in one, together, as a fist is composed of fingers drawn together.
There are also many verses where Jehovah proclaims that apart from him there is no savior, he alone is the savior and, also, that he is the alpha and omega, the first and last - terms used by and for Jesus in the New Testament. Who you gonna believe???
Mark 12:28-29
One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, "Of all the commandments, which is the most important?"
29"The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.'