Rotfl... v27 shows one person, God, His image for mankind, not a plural. If you'll notice, mankind has two aspects to them - one physical (earth, air, fire, water, etc.) and one spiritual (God's, ie, rulership, knowledge, godly attributes, Ex 34:6-7).
Angels consist of natural forces and elements, ie, Psalm 104:3-4, used in the creation of mankind. Just like the rest of creation, Gen 1:1-25.
So going back to Gen 1:26. Now you can understand that God, by Himself, exclusively singular, is speaking to the natural elements in the creation of mankind.
Of course it does, or at least your understanding does. Tanakh clearly calls out the Father as the exclusive Creator, ie, Deut 32:6, etc.
Now, we do have emissaries in the role of God as in Abraham, Genesis 23:6, Moses, 7:1, Judges, Ex 21:6, 22:8-9, Psalm 82:6, the house of David, Zechariah 12:8, angels, Psalm 8:5.
So, it should be no surprise that the Father's spoken word should act as God in the creation of all, as His word doesn't return void, Isaiah 55:11.
The Father is Spirit, there is no other. Psalm 40:6 mentions no son, but does mention that the person in question does acknowledge another as God. You need to do better.
Well, being that Jesus died proves he was neither everlasting nor the Father, and his own words in John 20:17 and Matthew 16:17 proves as much.
Tanakh has many people with godly names such as Daniel, Elijah, Hezekiah, Elisha, Isaiah, Adonijah, etc. For consistency, do you consider these people divine too?