Sidenote: There are several Elohim mentioned in the ‘Original’ Ancient Hebrew texts which are:
• Elohim of the Israelites was a Male Elohim named Yahweh
• Elohim of the Moabites was a Male Elohim named Kamosh
• Elohim of the Ammonites was a Male Elohim named Milkom
• Elohim of the Sidonians was a Female Elohim named Astarte
Additionally, the name ‘El’, according to the Ancient Hebrew Texts of the Torah, as well as the in the christian Bible, seems to suggest ‘EL’ is ‘Yahweh’s’ father.
Citation: Deuteronomy 32:8-9 “When the Most High [EL] gave to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of men, he fixed the bounds of the people according to the number of the Sons of God. For Yahweh’s portion is his people, Jacob his alllotted heritage.”

Another Elohim is named ‘Asherah’ from the land of Canaan (The Canaanites) and is considered Yahweh’s (LORD) wife or companion. In fact in Tel Arad, there is an excavated temple that shows 2x Elohim were revered together beside one another and those two were both Yahweh the Elohim and Asherah the (Female) Elohim. See here for more information from the Jewish Women’s Association: https://jwa.org/encyclopedia/article/asherahasherim-bible

Some notes by: Isidore Singer, George A. Barton

Biblical Data:
In the Masoretic text, the name is “Molech”; in the Septuagint “Moloch.” The earliest mention of Molech is in Leviticus. xviii. 21, where the Israelite is forbidden to sacrifice any of his children to Molech. Similarly, in Leviticus. xx. 2-5, it is enacted that a man who sacrifices his seed to Molech shall surely be put to death. Then, curiously, it is provided that he shall be cut off from the congregation. In I Kings xi. 7 it is said that Solomon built a high place for Molech in the mountain “that is before Jerusalem.” The same passage calls Molech an Ammonite deity. The Septuagint as quoted in the New Testament (Acts vii. 43) finds a reference to Moloch in Amos v. 26; but this is a doubtful passage. In II Kings xxiii. 10 it is stated that one of the practices to which Josiah put a stop by his reform was that of sacrificing children to Molech and that the place where this form of worship had been practiced was at Topheth, “in the valley of the children of Hinnom.” This statement is confirmed by Jer. xxxii. 35. From II Kings xxi. 6 it may be inferred that this worship was introduced during the reign of Manasseh. The impression left by an uncritical reading of these passages is that Molech worship, with its rite of child sacrifice, was introduced from Ammon during the seventh century B.C.

Nature of Worship – A Critical View:
The name “Molech,” later corrupted into “Moloch,” is an intentional mispointing of “Melek,” after the analogy of “bosheth” (comp. Hoffmann in Stade’s “Zeitschrift,” iii. 124). As to the rites which the worshipers of Molech performed, it has sometimes been inferred, from the phrase “pass through the fire to Molech,” that children were made to pass between two lines of fire as a kind of consecration or februation; but it is clear from Isaac. lvii. 5 and Jer. xix. 5 that the children were killed and burned. The whole point of the offering consisted, therefore, in the fact that it was a human sacrifice. From Jer. vii. 31 and Ezekiel. xx. 25, 26, it is evident that both prophets regarded these human sacrifices as extraordinary offerings to Yahweh. Jeremiah declares that Yahweh had not commanded them, while Ezekiel says Yahweh polluted the Israelites in their offerings by permitting them to sacrifice their firstborn so that through chastisement they might know that Yahweh was Yahweh. The fact, therefore, now generally accepted by critical scholars, is that in the last days of the kingdom, human sacrifices were offered to Yahweh as King or Counselor of the nation and that the Prophets disapproved of it and denounced it because it was introduced from outside as an imitation of a heathen cult and because of its barbarity. In course of time the pointing of “Melek” was changed to “Molech” to still further stigmatize the rites.

The motive for Sacrifices:
To understand the motives for these sacrifices, one does not have to seek far. It is given in Micah vi. 7: “Shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?” In the midst of the disasters which were befalling the nation men felt that if the favor of Yahweh could be regained it was worth any price, they could pay. Their Semitic kindred worshiped their gods with offerings of their children, and in their desperation, the Israelites did the same. For some reason, perhaps because not all the priestly and prophetic circles approved of the movement, they made the offerings, not in the Temple, but at an altar or pyre called “Tapheth” (LXX.), erected in the valley of Hinnom (comp. W. R. Smith, “Rel. of Sem.” 2d ed., p. 372). “Tapheth,” also, was later pointed to “Topheth,” after the analogy of “bosheth.” In connection with these extraordinary offerings, the worshipers continued the regular Temple sacrifices to Yahweh (Ezekiel. xxiii. 39).

Babylonian Cylinder Representing Sacrifice of a Child.
(From Menant, “Glyptique Orientale.”) —>

From the fact that I Kings xi. 7 calls Molech the “abomination of the children of Ammon” it was formerly assumed that this worship was an imitation of an Ammonite cult. But so little is known of the Ammonite religion that more recent scholarship has looked elsewhere for the source.

Because of the mention in II Kings xvii. 31 of Adrammelech (= Adar-malik) and Anammelech (=Anu-malik) as gods of Sepharvaim transplanted to Samaria, it has been inferred that this form of worship was borrowed from Babylonia (comp. Bäthgen, “Beiträge zur Semitischen Religionsgesch.” pp, 238 et seq.). This view rests on the supposition that “Sepharvaim” is equal to “Sippar,” which probably is not the case. Even if it were, Anu and Adar were not gods of Sippar; Shamash was the god of that city. From this verse, therefore, a Babylonian or Assyrian origin can not be demonstrated.

Support for this view has been sought also in Amos v. 26. If, as is probable, Siccuth and Chiun in that passage are names or epithets of Babylonian deities (comp. Chiun), the use of “Melek” in connection with these affords no sound basis for argument. The whole passage may be, as Wellhausen and Nowack believe, a late gloss introduced on account of II Kings xvii. 31, and is in any case too obscure to build upon. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the sacrifice of the firstborn was a feature of the worship of Babylonian deities. Because child sacrifice was a prominent feature of the worship of the Phenician Malik-Baal-Kronos, Moore (in Cheyne and Black, “Encyc. Bibl.”) seeks to prove that the worship of Moloch was introduced from Phenicia. The evidence of its existence in Phenicia and her colonies is especially strong. Diodorus Siculus (xx. 14) tells how the Carthaginians in a siege sacrificed two hundred boys to Kronos. Burning was an important feature of the rite.

Sources:
W. R. Smith, Rel. of Sem. 2d ed., pp. 372 et seq.
Bäthgen, Beiträge zur Semitischen Religionsgesch. 1888, pp. 237 et seq.
Moore, The Image of Moloch, in Jour. Bib. Lit. 1897, xvi. 161 et seq.
M. J. Lagrange, Etudes sur les Religions Sémitiques, 1903, pp. 99-109.