If you are asking about the NUMBER (that is, 10) of the commandments, you are correct to assume that they are not easily numbered (so different traditions count and assign numbers to them differently) and that the "10" is a figurative term. In Hebrew culture, "ten" meant "complete". So "the 10 commandments" is a way of saying, "These commandments summarize man's complete set of obligations to living rightly before God." After all, the Book of Leviticus goes on to describe HUNDREDS of laws/rules from God, so the ten are clearly an overview of the basics.
As to the "other gods", in the neighboring cultures of the time the "foreign gods" and "other gods" of the Old Testament were such popularly worshiped gods of that part of the world as Baal and Molech. (And entire journals articles are often published tracing Ashtaroth and the variants like Ishtar which can also be connected to Isis and Venus and other sex/fertility goddesses. Even the word "Easter" is related to Ishtaroth as in the "fertility" of nature coming to life in the spring.)
I hope that this is helpful.
=======================================
>Um does no one see that giving a figurative explanation >doesn't go with a literal choice? If literal then there are >an existence of "other gods" if figurative then there isn't!
No. That's simply an incorrect assumption.
There appears to be at least one and probably two errors in your thinking:
1) You appear to be confusing the concept that some words have MULTIPLE LEXICON ENTRIES (i.e., more than one definition) with the difference between literal and figurative. And that is why you are frustrated that no one else is "getting it".
2) And I get the impression you are also working hard to say that the Biblical text is "admitting" the existence of other "literal gods" but no one is agreeing with you because you are trying to create dichotomies which don't exist.
If you still aren't "getting it", consider the Canaanite gods Molech (aka Moloch) and Baal. Even though the viewpoint of the Hebrew text is that these gods do not exist, referring to them is still a literal use of the term. And in modern English, the word "god" has been applied so often to money, fame, and power to the degree that this application of the word is actually found in many dictionaries. So a figurative use of a word can eventually become standard to where it becomes a literal meaning. (Indeed, this is extremely common in countless languages.)
But even a single sentence (whether in ancient Hebrew or modern English) can mix the figurative use of some words with a literal meaning of a phrase or sentence. It is not a rigid "all or nothing" or "all this or all that" as you seem to be trying to force into the text.
I would point out that these kinds of interpretive errors are not uncommon among the average undergraduate taking his/her first course in Intro to Ancient Near Eastern Religious Traditions or even Intro to World Religions. (After teaching at universities in the UK before teaching in the U.S., I can say that many Americans are particularly challenged in trying to understand cross-cultural and linguistic hermeneutical issues because we in U.S. tend to have had fewer opportunities to interact with other cultures and to achieve multilingual fluency, or even feel pressure to learn another language.) But by far the most common error is to attempt to impose one's personal worldview (such as belief in one god, many gods, or no gods) on to the discussion at hand. So in this case, can we correctly assume that you are attempting in your "question" posted here to impose upon others your view of the Biblical text---but becoming frustrated in the process because no one "gets it" and that is because the "evidence" you present simply isn't there?