Generally, as I’m certain that you are aware of, in Hebrew, the type of verb matching the noun indicates what form (number) the noun is of, plural or singular. It is a singular verb in Genesis 1:1 that refers to the noun elohim.
I’m also sure that you know; nouns with the masculine suffix ’im’ are not always literally plural, it doesn’t take much research to see that there are singular objects that are given the plural ’im’ suffix in Hebrew… The well known example is “Etsyim”, (plural) it can mean trees in Hebrew, but it can also refer to a singular tree of grandeur size and appearance if a singular tree is being spoken of. Etsyim is a well known example showing a singular object in Hebrew. Yet, it is given a plural suffix, which on it‘s initial ‘im’ suffix appearance; we would think that it denotes plurality, ‘trees’… Not always though…
By the nature of etsyim, grammatically, it is a numerical plural (i.e. denoting multiplicity) … But, where etsyim speaks of a singular tree there is no multiplicity of many trees, least of all three trees within the singular tree form … It is not a singular tree being made up of other singular trees, even if it has the ’im’ suffix. There are no other trees within the technically plural etsyim grandiose large tree.
So, to be reasonable, why would we have any need to believe that there are other “persons” or forms involved within the technically plural Hebrew noun elohim of Genesis 1:1 if it can be, and seems to be speaking of a truly singular God, especially where the singular verb “bara” (created) tends to indicate the form of the noun elohim as being of a singular form without it indicating a multiple form within. This is in comparison, with the technically plural etsyim, being a singular stand alone tree, it is definitely of a singular form without any form of other trees making up it’s composition, e.g. Grammatically speaking, is there a reasonable and logical argument that the singular etsyim tree actually consists of multiple forms within the one tree and the elohim of Genesis 1:1 follows suit ? I don’t think so.