1 Elohim is the name of the creator in Genesis. Elohim is a semitic plural and should be translated "the gods".
2 YHWH didn't say: "I'm the only god". He said: "I'm a jealous god ....
--------------------------------
Well, I some ways this is partly right, but GOD (a singularity) manifests in multiplicity, in that G_d can only be understood as an Oct ad or Ogdoad principle of attributes- that is is is eight-fold faceted. As to the trinity some folks say G.O.D. is a triad, and they split it into three "persons." I personally don't argue over 1 vs 3 persons anymore. I understand God shows himself in EIGHT different aspects: Sun, Moon, Earth, Wind/Air, war/heroic genre, etc. What we have is a Platonic system here of major archetypes- there are only EIGHT main genres of anything: languages, government principles, racial types. The Hebrews tradition remembers this in their 8 names of God in O. test. God, just as we are only has 8 types of accessible traits or "Humours" temperament patterns. There are only 8 virtues, etc. What we are arguing over is: Is god ONE or MANY? Scientifically, there is the great ideal ,of "a singularity" from which everything came out of. What we see is a "multiplicity". So, GOD in diversity. The Hindu fought over whether GOD was one or many, and it drove them into spiritual bankruptcy. The truth is, ,no one an "SEE" god the say exact way. Everyone is an IMAGE of God and has their own "SLIGHT" varied perception, which should not be forced on others perception. We MUST agree "IT" is and can be a singularity in principle as well as a multiplicity in principle- a real oxymoron. BUT, how we ALL can get along and not destroy each other is, take most every religion and look for that ONE COMMON aspect about "G.O.D.", and that is "LOVE". Love is a singularity UNDEFINED, but it rests and abides within a "multiplicity" of being- us humans. GOD IS LOVE and its "Intelligent"!!!!!! One thing the HINDUS became right about is, when you go to DEFINE GOD (intellectually), you UN-DEFINE HIM. God cannot be mentally figured mout, but only experienced - ? existentialism?
