It is very clear from the book of Genesis that God who by default refers to the Father, talked to other being(s) and made this statement.
Genesis 1:26
Let us make man in our image
The verse above shows that those beings The Father was talking to, had the ability to create or make otherwise He would not have involved them in that process, does this make the concept of God plural since that implies more than one creator
Who is the “Us”?
Genesis 1:26 introduces the plural pronouns “us” and “our,” which appear again in Genesis 3:22 and Genesis 11:7. In other words this is not a singular event. This means we should take multiple scriptures into account. The plural form in Genesis 1:26 suggests a conversation among a plurality with the ability to create.
Genesis 1:26 - “Then God said, ‘Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness…’”
What we know:
Genesis 3:22 - “Then the LORD God said, ‘Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil…’”
What we know:
Genesis 11:7 - “Come, let Us go down and there confuse their language, so that they will not understand one another’s speech.”
What we know:
Let's look at some common interpretations of this evidence: [1]
Jewish tradition (Angels)
One traditional Jewish explanation is that God consulted with angels. However, this view has two main counter arguments:
Plurality of gods
Some cults interpret the “us” as referring to a plurality of gods. This line of argumentation suggests that there are multiple gods involved in creation. However, this interpretation conflicts with numerous biblical passages that affirm the oneness of God. (Such as Deuteronomy 6:4, Mark 12:29, and Isaiah 44:6.)
The Trinity
The most widely accepted Christian interpretation is that the “us” refers to the Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Trinity holds that God is one being in three persons.
Let's have a look at this shall we?
By which I mean: I'm going to have a look at this.
Grammar is its own world. Grammatical gender isn't what organs something has. Tense isn't when something happened. And number isn't how many there are of a literal thing - it derives that from its original function of conceptualizing a group. (e.g. Fuchs, L. (2008). "From counting to categorization: The role of the classifier in the conceptualization of noun phrases". In Cognitive Linguistics: A Practical Introduction.)
The heavily-standardizing Imperial English of the mid-20th Century has tended to crush this out into the dialects and colloquialisms. (People conceptualizing is never wanted in an empire.) But purely conceptual plurals have survived. Gis a fag! Muggins'll get one then. But I'll have to consult the powers that be.
English is one of the least likely languages to do this - and straight away that's three everyday examples. The whole of the Indo-European and Semitic language families have done plurals-for-singulars since the invention of writing.
Longinus, writing in the 1st Century AD, considered this a type of polyptoton or wordplay.
On the Sublime, 23(2)
φημὶ δὲ τῶν κατὰ τοὺς ἀριθμοὺς οὐ μόνα ταῦτα κοσμεῖν, ὁπόσα τοῖς τύποις ἑνικὰ ὄντα τῇ δυνάμει κατὰ τὴν ἀναθεώρησιν πληθυντικὰ εὑρίσκεται...ἀλλ̓ ἐκεῖνα μᾶλλον παρατηρήσεως ἄξια, ὅτι ἔσθ̓ ὅπου προσπίπτει τὰ πληθυντικὰ μεγαλορρημονέστερα καὶ αὐτῷ δοξοκοποῦντα τῷ ὄχλῳ τοῦ ἀριθμοῦ
Indeed, I say that concerning numbers, not only do these decorate, but as many as are singular in form are found to be plural in force according to the reconsideration... But those instances merit greater observation, in that wherever the plurals occur, they are more magnificent and seem to lift the multitude of numbers.
Longinus' old testament would have been the LXX, which keeps the plural idiom:-
Genesis 1:26
καὶ εἶπεν ὁ θεός Ποιήσωμεν ἄνθρωπον κατ᾽ εἰκόνα ἡμετέραν καὶ καθ᾽ ὁμοίωσιν· καὶ ἀρχέτωσαν τῶν ἰχθύων τῆς θαλάσσης καὶ τῶν πετεινῶν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καὶ τῶν κτηνῶν καὶ πάσης τῆς γῆς καὶ πάντων τῶν ἑρπετῶν τῶν ἑρπόντων ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς.
'κατ᾽ εἰκόνα ἡμετέραν' would be a headache for the reader/listener if ἡμετέραν isn't a poetic plural, since that requires the 'image' to be a shared semblance of the characteristics the group has in common. When the only person in the group for certain is God, that involves (i) a theological stretch since the other members of the group have features in common with God (ii) a narrative stretch since no other members of the group are described and (iii) a conceptual stretch since the semblance to a diverse group's shared characteristics is asking the reader/listener to supply more information than the more straightforward option of the plural-for-singular.
Rashi, a medieval scholar who authored the primary Jewish biblical commentary, asks your question on this verse.
He answers that we learn of God's humility from this verse. God knew that heretics would later use this verse to argue in favor of polytheism, or to deny God, yet He chose to consult his ministering angels, to teach us the trait of humility.
As a refutation of these heretics it is written immediately after this verse “And God created the man”, and it is not written “and they created".
see https://www.sefaria.org/Genesis.1.26?with=Rashi for the full text.
Actually, Hebrew term for God in Tanakh/Old Testament - Elohim is morphologiclaly a plural. While in some places it refers to the unique God, on many occasions it is an actual plural. This opens a range of possibilities, to mention a few:
