You are on page 1of 28

Concerning the ancient Egyptian religion during the time of the Pharaohs, the Qur'an reports

three interesting statements. Firstly, when Prophet Moses calls Pharaoh to worship one true God,
the call is rejected. Instead Pharaoh collects his men and proclaims that he is their Lord, most
high.
Hath the story of Moses reached thee? Behold, thy Lord did call to him in the sacred valley of Tuwa, "Go thou
to Pharaoh for he has indeed transgressed all bounds: And say to him, Wouldst thou that thou shouldst be
purified (from sin)? - And that I guide thee to thy Lord, so thou shouldst fear Him?'" Then did (Moses) show
him the Great Sign. But (Pharaoh) rejected it and disobeyed (guidance); Further, he turned his back, striving
hard (against God). Then he collected (his men) and made a proclamation, Saying, "I am your Lord, Most
High". [Qur'an 79:15-24]

Secondly, when Moses goes to Pharaoh with clear signs, they are rejected as being "fake".
Pharaoh then addresses his chiefs by saying that he knows of no god for them except him.
Pharaoh said: "O Chiefs! no god /God do I know for you but myself... [Qur'an 28:38]

The last[Thirdly] statement comes in connection with the victory of Prophet Moses over the
magicians of Egypt. Here the chiefs of Pharaoh say to him that this victory of Moses over the
magicians could result in an abandonment of you (i.e., Pharaoh) and your gods (Arabic: wa
yadaraka wa lihataka) in favour of the God of Moses.
And the chiefs of Pharaoh's people said: "Do you leave Musa and his people to make mischief in the land and
to forsake you and your gods/Gods?" He said: "We will slay their sons and spare their women, and surely we
are masters over them." [Qur'an 7:127]

However, according to Christian missionaries, the statement reported in the Qur'an 28:38 is in
"direct contradiction" to Qur'an 7:127.
In other words, the Pharaoh claims that he is the only god for his people, the Egyptians, in direct
contradiction to 7:127 where the chiefs of his people express concern that Moses' victory could lead to the
downfall of their traditional Egyptian gods (in the plural).

Commenting on the Qur'an 28:38, another Christian missionary says:


This is an enormous historical error. The Pharaohs believed themselves divine, however there is no evidence
that any Pharaoh considered himself the one and only god. Amenhotep is considered to be a monotheist,
however he did not hold himself to be the one and only god, he believed that title belonged to the god Aten
[also called Aton]. The god Ra was considered the highest god in ancient Egypt, not the Pharaoh.
[Let this objection be marked since lack of evidence cannot be a Historical Error [HR] Since it is Possible that
Qura:n is reporting some thing which is not reported by the records of History. What if there is some thing
reported in New Testamentum which is not recorded in Historical Records. ]

In order to support their claim of "direct contradiction", they quote Muhammad Asad, a wellknown Qur'an translator, who considers that the Qur'an 28:38 should not be "taken literally" as
the Egyptians also worshipped many gods. Given the fact that Asad is better known for his
translation of the Qur'an rather than his scholarship in the religion of ancient Egypt, the
missionaries then go on to explain the alleged "discrepancy" without any recourse to reliable,
verifiable historical sources. As one navigates the jumbled maze of verbiage one encounters
apparently innocuous questions such as:
[1]

Did the Egyptians have many gods or only one god? Since this may not have been the same at all times, we
would have to ask more specifically: What was the religion of the Egyptians at the time of the Exodus?
[These we have borrowed from Islamic Awareness]
The question is that why the missionaries have used such material to shew that there are internal
contradictions in Holy Quran.? This is because their enmity of Quran has reached to its maximum. If such a
problem has been in their beloved books they would have tried to solve the problem instead of claiming
objections as one may see in the case of several objections on their beloved books.
We have tried to discuss the problem in another way.
The Basic Error in the Objection:=
The missionaries have some how assumed that the Monotheism and Polytheism in Ancient Egyptian Religion
[AER] were as opposites as in Semitic Religions [SR] nounly [namely] Judaism,Christianity and Islam which
are Pure Monotheistic Religions. Thus all the cases of claims of Contradictions are based on the basic
assumption that the Ancient Egyptian Religion [AER] was a Pure Polytheism. Ifthis assumption is wrong and
incorrect then all the claims of contradiction are not only falsified but disproved.
AER is some how a Henotheism or

Kathenotheism instead of Pure Monotheism [PM] and

Pure Polytheism [PP].


Their idea about God and gods was not so simple and it is not a correct scholarship
that they are attempted to be studied in light of SR.
Ancient Egyptian Religion [AER] may be studied in the light of Hindu Texts since it
was much close to Henotheism as Major Hindu Sects [MHS] are.
1 At first sight, Hinduism seem to be unequivocally Pure Polytheistic: there are
certainly many gods. Indra is the king of the Gods and God of the rain (much like his
Greek and Roman cousins Zeus and Iupiter); Varuna the God of the heavenly vault
and the moral law (related to the Greek Ouranos); Agni the God of fire (cf. the Latin
ignis, and the English ignite); and so forth. Each individual worshiper would know,
and might use, several different poems to different Gods. Always there was an
awareness of the multiplicity of the gods. At time of war, or drought, one prayed to
Indra; in a sacrifice, one invoked Agni (the sacrificial fire); and so forth. We can
detect both what might be called PERSONAL
2 polytheism (one person worshipping

several gods) and Communal polytheism (several people worshipping several gods
and respecting, or at the very least acknowledging the existence of, one anothers
gods).The same is true of Ancient Egyptian Religion.
2 But the polytheism of Vedic religion sometimes functioned as a kind of Serial
Monotheism [SM]that the Vedic scholar Friedrich Max Mller (1823-1900) named
Henotheism or Kathenotheism, the worship of a number of gods, one at a time,
regarding each as the supreme, or even the only, god while you are talking to him.
Thus, one Vedic poem will praise a god and chalk up to his account the credit for
separating heaven and earth, propping them apart with a pillar, but another Vedic
poem will use exactly the same words to praise another god. (In addition, each god
would have characteristics and deeds that were his alone; no one but Indra kills the
demonic serpent of drought.) Bearing in mind the way in which the metaphor of
adultery has traditionally been used by monotheistic religions to stigmatize
polytheism (whoring after other gods), and used by later Hinduism to characterize
the love of god (as in the Bengali tradition of Krishna and Radha), we might regard
this attitude as a kind of theological parallel to serial monogamy, or, if you prefer,
open hierogamos:
You, Vishnu, are the only god I've ever worshiped; you are the only one. You,
Varuna, are the only god I've ever worshiped; you are the only one.
You, Juliet, are the only woman I've ever loved; you are the only one. This the
concept which cannot be understand if the believes are divided into only two sets:1)
Pure Monotheism. 2)Pure Polytheism.
Since there are some more sets of believes.
When a God/god is discussed he as discussed as IF he is the Only God/god and
there is No God/god beside that God/god, even if multitudes of Gods/gods [of either
gender] are believed.
One must consider such words in light of Henotheism, Kathenpotheism
andMonolatrism. The may be a type of Polytheism but Certainly not Pure
Polytheism. For sake of simplicity the word Polytheism is only used for the Pure
Polytheism in this entire essay or article.
The idea of the [only] one as applied to several different members of a
polytheistic pantheon also appears in some of the later verses of the Rig Veda:
They call it Indra, Mitra, Varuna, Agni, and it is the heavenly bird that flies. The
wise speak of what is One in many ways; they call it Agni, Yama, Matarishvan.
[1.164.46] 1 The idea that one could choose between members of a pantheon of
gods was integral to Vedic religion. For example, each stanza of one Vedic poem
ends with the questioning refrain, Who is the god whom we should worship with
the oblation? 3 Thus: He by whom the awesome sky and the Earth were made
3

firm, by whom the dome of the sky was propped up, and the sun, who measured out
the middle realm of space who is the god whom we should worship with the
oblation? [10.121] The Atharva Veda, too, a fourth Veda composed in around 900
BCE, asked not only who the god was, but how many gods there might be: Who
and how many were those Gods who fastened together the chest and neck of the
Primeval Man? How many fixed his breasts? Who formed his elbows? How many
joined together ribs and shoulders? [10.2.4] The texts that followed the Vedas,
called the Brahmanas (mythological, philosophical, and ritual glosses on the Vedas),
were composed at a time (c. 800 BCE) when the Brahmin priests had taken on
greater control and influence; troubled by the open-ended refrain of the Rig Vedic
poem, they invented a god whose name was the interrogative pronoun Who (Ca\Ka,
cognate with the Latin quis, French qui,INTERESTINGLY there is a dogma of Ka in
Ancient Egypt as well.). Read back into the Vedic poem (as it was in later Vedic
commentaries 2 ), this resulted in an affirmative statement: Indeed, Who is the god
whom we should honor with the oblation, somewhat reminiscent of the famous
Abbott and Costello routine ("Who's on first?"). This sacerdotal arrogance closed
down some of those openings through which fresh theological air had flowed in the
Veda. The question became the answer.

In this way it is clear that AER was not a Polytheism but a Henotheism .In the ancient Egyptian
Religion the same idea was used . The Egyptian Monarchs were believed to be Gods or Gods
Incarnates [Incarnation(s)Of God]. In this case when Pharaoh claimed "O Chiefs! no god do I know
for you but myself... [Qur'an 28:38], he did say it in the very same sense as in Henothiesm religions.

You, Vishnu, are the only god/God I've ever worshiped; you are the only one. You,
Varuna, are the only god/God I've ever worshiped; you are the only one.
So it is some how evident that there are some common elements in all Henotheistic religions, examples of
which has been provided.
So if Pharaoh said that he was the only God/god he said more or less in the Henotheistic meaning and not in
the Monotheistic meaning.
In Upanishads one find a Monism which is sometime confused by Monotheism. But they are different. There
are several Gods mentioned in Vedas. But how many Gods are there. Upnishad provides an other reply.
Upnishad says

In a dialogue 4 in which, in response to the pupil's repeated question, "But how


many gods are there, really?" the increasingly impatient teacher replies, first,
"Three hundred and three, and three thousand and three," then "Thirty-three," then,
"Six," then, "Three," then, "Two," then, "One and a half," and, finally, One." 3 This
One is the emblem not of monotheism but of Upanishadic monism, which
assumes that all living things are elements of a single, universal being (often called
brahman), reached by individual meditation, a philosophy often contrasted with the
polytheistic world of group sacrifice to multiple gods. The doctrine of the
4 as pantheism (in which God is
Upanishads is also sometimes characterized

everything and everything is God) or, at times, panentheism (in which God
encompasses and interpenetrates the universe, but at the same time this God is
Greater then the Iniverse and other than it.
The vague monism of the Vedas was sharpened by the more systematized Vedantic
monism of the Upanishads. Coming back to Egypt from India it is some what clear
that Egyptian also believed in One God along with multitudes of Gods/gods.
Ancient Egyptians often did chose to worship some or one of the many Egyptian gods/Gods, but
at the same time they continue to acknowledge the existence of the other Egyptian gods whom
they did not worship. This type of worship of one god/God (OR some gods/Gods) among many
gods/Gods is not Monotheism But Henotheism ,rather a form of Henothiesm, since there are
several forms of it. Henotheism is the belief in and the worship of one god while accepting the
existence of other gods.[or worshipping some gods while accepting other gods which are not
worshipped . This may be termed as Poly-Henotheism or Polyhenotheism].
It is pointed out that the many gods /Godsof Ancient Egyptians were simply various forms, appearences,
culminations,menifestations,incarnations and emanations) of a Single Supreme Being (God). This is where the idea
of monotheism comes in. A belief in a Single Supreme Being is Monotheism. But the belief that the many gods is
Polythiesim even if they are all included in the One, Single, Supreme Being. Therefore, , this Dogma of
Manifestation is Poly-Monotheistic. These Egyptian /Gods/gods eg Horus ,Osiris, even Ra himself, were believed to be

"manifestations, , or personified attributes of Only One God", the invisibleSupreme Being [ God/god]. These[Less Than
Supreme Being] were not believed to be separate gods, but incarnations or manifestations of one and same Supreme
Being[God/god] the one and only God/god, inseparable [in a meaning] from Him. A similar confusion is found in some
Hindu Texts and Sects say Vaishnavism.

The confusion partly arises because, unlike most religious traditions, Vaishnavism acknowledges a form
of Polymorphic Monotheism [which is actually not a type of Monotheism but Henotheism].. That is to say,
it holds that there is one Supreme BeingGod/god who appears in numerous manifestations, each distinct
and unique. These manifestations, moreover, are considered equal and yet hierarchical as well. They are
one, and yet different. Yet it may be said that all forms[ Word FormNot in the meaning of Essence/Nature]
of God are one, as in the following quote from Srila Prabhupada: How ever in Ancient Egypt it may be
differentiated that the Manifestations were not necessary Equal.
Some traces of trichotomy are even found in Hinduism .One such example is as follow:=

Jayadeva Goswami's Gita Govinda (circa twelth century) also proclaims Lord Krishna's primary position
among incarnations [of God], reinforcing the teaching of the Bhagavatam. After listing ten prominent
incarnations of Vishnu in the book's first chapter, Jayadeva concludes by stating that Krishna is their
source. In fact, Jayadeva implies Krishna's preeminence throughout the Gita Govinda and states it
explicitly in Act 1, Verse 16 (daakriti-krite krishnaya tubhyam namah): "O Krishna, I offer my obeisances
unto You, who assume these ten spiritual forms."
The same concept appears in ancient Egypt at particular
5 times.

5:= At first glance it appears that Monotheism and Polytheism not only grew up
side by side in Ancient Egypt but the also learned to live together, to grant one
anothers existence.But this is a birds eye view. A deeper study implies that it was a
Form of Henotheism which did developed in Egypt , as it appeared in Ancient India
[AI].

The number of scholars exclusionary focus on those portions of


found texts which support either monism or polytheism
amounted to mistaking Kathenotheistic Polytheism for Monistic
Monotheism.

Monism in Egypt acknowledged the reality of the gods/Gods of the pantheon but
accorded them a secondary, illusory status in comparison with the enduring, real
status of the underlying monistic God. Thus like many gods/Gods of the Hindu
Pantheon were often grouped under a monistic umbrella/armour, so that all
gods/Gods are said to be aspects of one particular god/God (sometimes Vishnu,
sometimes Shiva) or, more often, aspects of the universal, ineffable Brahman or
Barmh) the same may be said for Egyptian God and Gods/gods . As in India at other
times, individual, effable gods/Gods are said to be the manifestations of the true
god/God that is without qualities (nir-guna) [Barmh/Barhaman], but the
manifestations are characters with qualities (sa-guna)with names, adventures,
distinct appearances.

All of these theological variations, and many more, appear in the Puranas, the
encyclopedic Sanskrit (and, later, vernacular) texts that expound the myths, rituals,
and philosophies of sectarian Hinduism. Here we encounter the several avatars
(incarnations) of Vishnu, which make Vishnu a kind of walking one-god polytheism;
at times he appears as a fish, as a boar, as various human beings (Rama, Krishna,
even the Buddha), all of which were originally individual deities who later became
absorbed into the overarching figure of Vishnu. His incarnations are often said to be
partial: while Vishnu appears as Krishna, for instance, the god Vishnu also remains
in his heaven, entirely complete. In contrast with the complete lives that Vishnu
takes on in his avatars, the god Shiva becomes multiple by manifesting himself in
various forms, usually during relatively brief
6 masquerades. An other rather simple

explanation of Monism Polytheism amalgam is that There is only One God


[Barmh/Brahman] Who Manifested in Angel or Cherub like characters Vishnu , Shieu,
Barhama. This is the prime Manifestation (PM).

6: It is the Bhagavatam, in fact, that makes the most famous declarative statement about Krishna's
primary position IN RELATION TO OTHER
MANIFESTATIONS,APPEARENCES,CULMINATIONS,INCARNATIONS OF GOD.:

"All of the above-mentioned incarnations,manifestations,culminations et cetera are either plenary


portions or portions of the plenary portions of the Lord, but Lord Sri Krishna is the original Personality of
Godhead." (Bhag. 1.3.28) Actually, the First Cantos entire Third Chapter serves to prove THIS point: Its
first four verses glorify the Vishnus who appear in the beginning of creation, and then it lists a number of
important incarnations, including Krishna Himself. It is only at the end of the list that we find the
words krishnas tu bhagavan svayam"Krishna is God Himself"words that ring loudest for
theBhagavatam's traditional commentators.

Prabhupada's commentary on that text is clear: "In this particular stanza Lord Sri Krishna, the Personality
of Godhead, is distinguished from all other incarnations." And later in that purport: "According to Srila Jiva
Goswami's statement, in accordance with authoritative sources, Lord Krishna is the source of all other
incarnations. It is not that Lord Krishna has any source of incarnation."
According to Sri Jiva Goswami, one of the patriarchs of the Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition, this verse
(krishnas tu bhagavan svayam) is theparibhasa-sutra of the entire 18,000verse Bhagavatam. A paribhasa-sutra states the central theme of a literary work. In his Krishnasandarbha(Anuccheda 73), Sri Jiva elaborates, writing that the many verses of theBhagavatam might be
compared to an army, with this verse the monarch who commands that army. He further shows that,
according to this verse and many others, Krishna is the original form of God and the ideal object of pure
devotional service.
Jayadeva Goswami's Gita Govinda (circa twelth century) also proclaims Lord Krishna's primary position
among incarnations, reinforcing the teaching of the Bhagavatam. After listing ten prominent incarnations
of Vishnu in the book's first chapter, Jayadeva concludes by stating that Krishna is their source. In fact,
Jayadeva implies Krishna's preeminence throughout the Gita Govinda and states it explicitly in Act 1,
Verse 16 (daakriti-krite krishnaya tubhyam namah): "O Krishna, I offer my obeisances unto You, who
assume these ten spiritual forms."

In the Bhakti-rasamrita-sindhu, Rupa Goswami lists sixty-four characteristics or qualities exhibited by


living beings. Fifty of these, he writes, can be found in an ordinary soul (jiva) in minute proportion, while

Lord Brahma, Lord Shiva, and other demigods may possess as many as fifty-five. Vishnu, he continues,
displays up to sixty of these qualities. But the remaining four are found only in Krishna, escaping all other
manifestations of the Supreme. The four qualities unique to Krishna are as follows:
Embedded in these scriptural explanations of Krishna's supreme position is something more fundamental:
Krishna's supremacy underscores the superiority of love over power, sweetness over opulence.
Most concepts of God, even in the Vaishnava tradition, naturally evoke awe and reverence, but Krishna
evokes intimacy and personal loving relationship. It is this, beyond all else, that distinguishes Him among
manifestations of the Supreme. And love, as we all know, is the highest phenomenon in all of existence.
After all, when confronted with a choice between power and love, who would choose the former?
Srila Prabhupada writes in Chapter Ten of Teachings of Lord Chaitanya:"There is no beauty to compare
with that of Krishna, who is the origin of Narayana and all other incarnations, for no one possesses beauty
equal to or greater than Krishnas. Otherwise, why would the goddess of fortune, the constant companion
of Narayana, give up His association and engage herself in penance to gain the association of Krishna?
Such is the superexcellent beauty of Krishna, the everlasting mine of all beauty. It is from that beauty that
all other beautiful things emanate."
Conclusion of sixth primilinary:=
In Krishna Sect of Hinduism we find that there is only one God/god Who Manifests in several Forms
[ Some what Analogous to Hypostases] yet Krishna is unique in several respects. Based on them Krishna
is the greatest of All Manifestations.

Some examples from Sanskrit Canons:=


[A] Lord Krishna is the supreme absolute controller, whose form comprises
immortality, omniscience and bliss. He is without beginning, the origin of all, the
cause of all causes and the source of the Vedas.
Brahma Samhita, chapter 5, verse 1

A number of Indian Scholars of Sanskrit Scriptures believe that Krisna


is the human Incarnation of Vishnu who is inturn is the angelic or
bodily incarnation of Barmh or Brahman.

So if an incarnation calls himself as The Barmh or Brahman then this


means that the Incarnation is predicating its own self to the One that
is Incarnated or Manifested of both.
[B] He who knows Me as the unborn, as the beginningless, as the Supreme Lord of all
the worlds-he, undeluded among men, is freed from all sins.

[10:4-5]
[C] I am the source of all spiritual and material worlds. Everything emanates from Me.
The wise who know this perfectly engage in My devotional service and worship Me with
all their hearts.

[10:8]
These words cannot be said even by Vishu or Sheu . Since only Barmh or Brahman Hath the right to say
it. But If Krishna who is a human Incarnation of Superhuman/angelic Incarnation then the only possible
way to understand these words is be supposing the prerequisite that Incarnations whether prime or
secondary or tertiary can be predicated to the Barmh or Barhaman.
[D] Arjuna

said: You are the Supreme Brahman, the ultimate, the supreme abode and
purifier, the Absolute Truth and the eternal divine person. You are the primal God,
transcendental and original, and You are the unborn and all-pervading beauty. All the
great sages such as Nrada, Asita, Devala, and Vysa proclaim this of You, and now
You Yourself are declaring it to me.
[10:12-13
This is sufficient enough to prove that atleast some Hindus interpret this verse as the
predications stated above.
[E]]
Indeed, You alone know Yourself by Your own potencies, O origin of all, Lord of all
beings, God of gods, O Supreme Person, Lord of the universe![10:25]
[F] I am the Self, O Gudkea, seated in the hearts of all creatures. I am the beginning,
the middle and the end [ALPHA AND OMEGA]of all beings.

Chapter 10, Verse 20


9

[G] Of the Vedas I am the Sma-veda; of the demigods I am Indra; of the senses I am
the mind, and in living beings I am the living force [knowledge].

Chapter 10, Verse 22


This verse is very important henotheistic verse since it shews that all other
manifestations and incarnations are less than the incarnation known as
Krishna.
[H] 17. I am the father of this world, the mother, the dispenser of the fruits of
actions, and the grandfather; the (one) thing to be known, the purifier, the sacred
monosyllable (Om), and also the Rig-, the Sama- and Yajur Vedas.
[17
[I] 11. Fools disregard Me, clad in human form, not knowing My higher Being as the
great

Lord of (all) beings.


These are the complex cases of Henotheism ,Monolatrism and

Kathenotheism where a particular


manifestation or a particular incarnation of
Supreme Being [God/god] is predicated to
the Supreme Being or the Supreme Being is
predicated to the said Incarnation or
Manifestation or Culmination.
This aspect of Henotheism, Monolatrism,
Kathenotheism etc. are still a field of
research. Examples from Gita may be
interpreted differently by different Hindu
Sects and Cults, but the general impression
of Mahahbharat(a) and its part Bhagvat Gita
is that Krishna was a ruler and a human
being [at least in appearance] who claimed to
10

be the Supreme Being. The human


Incarnation i.e the body of Krishna as seen
be the viewers in Gita and Bharata is
predicated by Krishna to Supreme Being.
Now if the human person Krishna is not
denying Vedic Gods/ gods the only possible
conclusions are as follows:=
1] He is predicating His own Self to Supreme
Being.
2] He is Predicating Supreme Being to His
ownSself.
3] He is declairing him self as most high
incarnation among all
Incarnations,Menifestations,and
Culminations.
One may read entire Bhagvat Gita with this approach and it is most likely to second this
view that in Henotheis,Monolatry and Kathenotheism an Incarnation or a Manifestation
or a Culmination of the Supreme Being [God/god] is predicated to the Supreme Being
and vise versa. The Predication may be termed as Predicatheism .
As the Supreme Being is considered as the only Supreme Being, the Manifestation or
Incarnation or Culmination whether as a human being or an angelic or super human
being in the predication is the Henotheistic only God/god and not the Monotheistic only
God/god.

A type of Henotheism implies that the principal god/God exists in a context of


other gods/Gods. But another types implies that there is a Principle God/god That
Exists in context of His Manifestations, Incarnations and Culminations. This explains
better the religions [with all their cults and sects] that we find in ancientIndia and
Ancient Egypt then the simple Pure Polytheism.This type is termed as Summodeism.
11

Summodeism, may be defined as the worship of a Supreme Being


who sits at the head of a pantheon of other Gods/gods who are just s
manifestations , incarnations,culminations etcof this High god/God or
Supreme Being . Thus, in a summodeistic system, the existence of
multiple gods only occurs because a single, high god/God is able to
incarnate, to manifest and to culminate into many different
Gods/gods.
A form of Summodeism is common with Predicatheism.
This is the belief that is found in Bhagvat Gita. Which is the irrefutable
evidence that such believes did exist in the ancient world.

7:= Reason:
Even If Krishna is either a unique Manifestation/Form/Hypostase of Supreme Being yet at several times
Krishna Speaks as if He is the Very Supreme Being Himself and not just as a Manifestation/Hypostasis in
the Essence,Nature,Form,SubstanceExistence (Beingness) and Godhead of the Supreme Being. The
only reason which may be given is that each one of the Essence,Nature etc Of Supreme Being is highly
communicable to each one of the Forms, Manifestations, Hypostases, Culminations, Appearances et
cetera of the Supreme Being. A manifestation or an Incarnation or a Culmination was predicated to the
Being which Was Manifested or Culminated or Inacarnated, and vice versa. This was the reason that
when an Incarnation like Krishna conversed with his devotees say Arjun(a), he spoke as if He is the Very
Supreme Being Itself not just an Incarnation of the Supreme Being.
Coming back to Egypt it may be said that Pharaoh was not a Philosopher yet he did know his
Henotheistic believes and his courtiers must also know their Henotheistic believes. Pharaoh must have
known his believes and he must have known the Henotheistic Religion of Egypt. It need not to be a
Philosopher to believe in a religion whether it is Polytheistic or Monotheistic or Henotheistic or
Cathenotheistic etc. Ancient Egyptian and Ancient Indians both did not believe in the plurality of Supreme
Beings.
What Pharaoh did say was that he was the greatest Manifestation Of Supreme Being. Pharaoh at that
was speaking as if he was not a Manifestation of Supreme Being but the very Supreme Being Himself.
Predicating himself as a Manifestation to the Supreme Being,

12

8:= Monism is some time considered as a kind of Monotheism. But Monism may be Polytheistic or
Monotheistic or Henotheistic or Kathenotheistic. Similarly Monotheism may be Monistic or Non Monistic,
Polytheism may be Monistic or Non Monistic etc. The same is true for Pantheism and Spinozaism.

9:= Pharaohs

have often been characterized as gods/Gods on earth. While the kingship as an


institution may have continued fairly constantly throughout more than 3,000 years of history of
ancient Egypt, just what the office signified, how the kings understood their role, and how the
general populace perceived the king do not constitute a uniform concept that span the centuries
without change. In other words, the ancient Egyptians' view of the king, implied by various
historical references, was not static. It underwent changes during the more than 3,000 years of
Egyptian history. From the early times the epithet ntr referred directly to the king as a god.
Sometimes the term occurred alone and at other times it appeared with a modifying or
descriptive word.
[2]

[3]

In ancient Egypt provides a very important piece of Information [the Great Temple at Abu
Simbel, SeeFigure 2]. It does shew the "Lord of Two Lands Usermare-setpenre" (= Ramesses
II) offering to "Ramesses-meryamun" (= Ramesses II). Obviously, Ramesses II is worshipping
Ramesses II here. However, we also note that the worshipper and the one who is worshipped
have two different names and that these names are pronomen and nomen of Ramesses II,
respectively. A closer look at the iconography reveals that the worshipper and he who is
worshipped are not identical. He, to whom the offering is made, is adorned with a sun-disk and
has a curved horn around his ear, depicting his divinity. Therefore, Ramesses II is not simply
worshipping himself, but his divine/Divine Self/self.
[18]

In

other words the Self of incarnation of God and Self of Incarnated God are in close relation
with one another. This is just an attempt to represent this concept in form of picture.
As one can see from the examples just discussed, the Pharaoh exalted himself as Lord. From an
Incarnation of God to the Incarnated God Himself .That is he used to predicate his self to the
Supreme Being.The institution of Lordship in ancient Egyptian belief cannot be underestimated.
It was the way in which ordinary Egyptians understood the residence of their gods on earth.
[19]

By the early New Kingdom, deification of the living king had become an established practice, and the living
king could himself be worshipped and supplicated for aid as a god. [5]

13

As wesee Some Krishna

worshippers that Krishna is not only predicated to Vishnu but also to the
Barmh or Brahma:n the Supreme Being of Hinduism. The same it is the case that the
very same was true for Egyptian Gods in AER.

DEIFICATION

OF

PHARAOHS
A]
APharaohs were believed to be Divine from the very beginning.How ever the
emphasis on their Godhood was different in different times.

. Generally the Egyptian kings were not considered as equal to haveanly


asGods/gods like Osiris, Re Amun,Aten etc.
The Divinity of the dead kings is more obvious than the Divinity of the a living king,
While what we might call full deification occurred for some monarchs within their
lifetimes,
it was usually in death that this state, however, was reached and a good deal of
evidence seems to show that the deceased Egyptian king was venerated as a full
god/God..

But from early times the epithet netjer (ntr) referred directly to the king as a god/God.
Sometimes the term occurred alone; at other times it appeared with modifying or
14

descriptive words. Another epithet from early times referred to the king as a
descendant of a god s R, son of Re.
Throughout the Old Kingdom the kings were said to have the powers of the
Gods/gods: Hu (divine utterance), Sia (divine knowledge) and Heka (divine energy
and knowledge of magic).
The God/god who was generally believed in the incarnation of the kings was Re, the
creator and preserver of the world.Althouth he was himself a Menifestation of the
Supreme Being as it must be kept in mind.
Some Texts found in Pyramids inform that Heavenly Gods/gods could be worried
,warned, threatened, or hurt ,rewarded or punished according to their acts and doings
in regard to Pharaohs of Egypt. For example see Utterance 485 in Papy I.
It is found that the Heavenly Gods/gods Who will take the Pharaoh [Earthly God/god
According to AER] shall live and ,endure. Bulls shall be slaughtered for them and he
shall ascend to the Mansion of Horus (which is in skies, as a reward from the
Pharaoh).
But strange punishments are declared for those Gods/gods who do not make the
Pharaoh to ascend to skies, as no sacrifice, not possessing of leopard skin and even
preventing them from ascension to the Mansion stated above.
From this perspective it clearly exposes that the king was honored as an
Incarnation God/god and the incarnate powers of the Heavenly Some Heavenly
Gods/gods. Some heavenly Gods/gods were honored in the human king. Human
God/god figures were respected as Incarnation of Celestial god-like /God-like
powers.Yet they may be considered as lesser Gods/gods than the heavenly and
celestial Gods/gods. Human Gods/gods [Pharaohs] were considered lesser then the
Heavenly Gods/gods in general, and some heavenly Gods/gods were considered less
than the other heavenly Gods/gods.
But the heavenly Gods/gods were not believed to be immortal. Death and Mortality
were possible for them. Isis threatened Seth to eat his one of the two limbs. This
proves that injuries were possible for them. A s a big fish eats the small fish a greater
God/Goddess/god/goddess could eat the small
15 one (at least in parts).

The Pharaoh God/god Unas was said to eat some Gods/gods in after life.
These shew that Pharaohs were believed to be lesser than some celestial Gods/gods
particularly those whose incarnations they were believed to be but they were
considered greater and more Powerful than at least some of them. This also does shew
beyond any shadow of doubt that even the heavenly Gods/gods were believed to be
perishable ,mortal and annihilatable.
There were instances when a living king did declared himself fully Divine/divine
within their lifetimes. . . . The living Deification of Amenophis III and Rameses II
during their reigns are certainly attested.

In the case of Amenophis III we find that the king began the increasing solarization of
Egypts major cults and of his own kingship. According to Raymond Johnson the
king declared himself deified and merged with the solar disc, the Aten. According to
Shaw, monuments dating from his reign name Rameses himself as the god.
We find the king taking divine prerogatives in his representations, such as those
showing him with the curved beard of the gods, with the horns of Amun and wearing
the lunar crescent and sun disc or presenting an offering before a statue of himself. In
the inner shrine of the great rock cut temples of Abu Simbel, Rameses III was to do
likewise. Rameses II did have four statues cut to represent Ptah, Re-Horakhte, Oriris
(himself) and Amun-Re, seated side by side. That the king is not simply depicted in
the company of the gods is clear, since the figures are shown as incontrovertible
equals,rather greater then them.
Since It has even been suggested by some that in this group the king might be
represented as an embodiment of all these national gods.A human Incarnation of not
just one God/god but a number of Gods/gods. Implying more Powerful God/god then
all ofGods/gods present there.
But it is a more powerful explanation that he considered himself as an incarnation of
Supreme Being whose manifestations were the rest of Gods/gods in the representation
stated above.
16

During the time of Ramesses II, the deification/Deification of Pharaoh reached its MAXIMUM
as evidenced in some cult statues as well as supporting hieroglyphs and papyri. Keeping this in
mind, let us now look at the two statements made in the Qur'an, i.e., Pharaoh - the god of Egypt and his gods/Gods..So Some Pharaohs did exalted their positions from an average God/god to
more glorified rather the incarnation of the Supreme Being or Re.
[6]

Monotheistic Tendencies
According to Budge:
The late Dr. H. Brugsch collected a number of the epithets [published in Religion pages 99-101]
which are applied to the gods, from texts of all periods; and from these we may see that the ideas
and beliefs of the Egyptians concerning God were almost identical with those of the Hebrew and
Muhammadans at later periods. When classified these epithets read thus [Budge provides more
examples, well just stick to a few] :-

1]

God is One and alone, and none other existeth with Him; God is the One, the One Who hath
made all things.

2]

God is a spirit, a hidden spirit, the spirit of spirits, the great spirit of the Egyptians, the divine
spirit.

3]

God is from the beginning, and He hath been from the beginning; He hath existed from of old
and was when nothing else had being. He existed when nothing else existed, and what existeth He
created after He hand come into being. He is the father of beginnings.

4]

God is the eternal One, He is eternal and infinite; and endureth for ever and aye; He hath endured
for countless ages, and He shall endure to all eternity.
We have now to consider the visible emblem, and the type and symbol of God, namely the Sungod Ra, who was worshiped in Egypt in prehistoric times. According to the writings of the
Egyptians, there was a time when neither heaven nor earth existed, and when nothing had being
except the boundless primeval water, which was, however, shrouded with thick darkness. In this
condition the primeval water remained for a considerable time, notwithstanding that it contained
within it the germs of the things which afterwards came into existence in this world itself.
The spirit of the primeval water felt the desire for creative activity, and having uttered the word,
the world sprang straightway into being in the form which had already been depicted in the mind
of the spirit before he spake the word which resulted in its creation. The next act of creation was
17

the form of a germ, or egg, from which sprang Ra, the Sun-god, within whose shining form was
embodied the almighty power of the divine spirit.
LATTER the spirit of the primeval water felt the desire for creative activity, and having uttered the
word, the world sprang straightway into being in the form which had already been depicted in the
mind of the spirit before he spake the word which resulted in its creation. The next act of creation
was the form of a germ, or egg, from which sprang Ra, the Sun-god, within whose shining form
was embodied the almighty power of the divine spirit.

This does shew that Re is the first of Not-Supreme


Being Gods/gods but not the Supreme Being Itself.
An analogy may be found that BETWEEN
Barmh /Barahman and Indian Gods/gods
Vishnu,Sheu,Narayan and Barhama.All the four are
manifestations of Barhama.[ a VERSON of Indial
Cults].
It may be reminded and recalled that:=
1]There is a Difference between Monotheistic Monism and Henotheistic Monotheism. Monism
may be Polytheistic or Monotheistic, or Henotheism et cetera. A Polytheistic Monism may be
easily confused with Henotheism. Yet it is very close to it.
2]There is a difference between Monotheistic Tendencies and Monotheism in general and Pure
Monotheism in Particular as there are differences between Pure Polytheism and Polytheistic
tendencies.
3]It may be noted that the Strict Islamic Pure Monotheism apply the word Shirc/Schirc/Shirk not
Only to Polytheism but Polytheistic tendencies, even to some forms of less Pure Monotheism.
4] It appears that either Pharaoh declares himself as an Incarnation of Supreme Being or Re
which is in turn is an incarnation of Supreme Being.
If the latter case is true even then he is predicating himself to the Supreme Being, making hime
greater than all other Egyptian Gods/gods.
18

Not equal to the Supreme Being but the very Supreme Being.
WHAT IF SOME THING IS INFORMED FROM THE OMNISCIENT AND NOT FOUND IN
HISTORICAL RECORDS.
As ALL-H is the Omniscient Supreme Existent He Doeth Know every thing and many things in
the history which did cease to exist in past and are neither conveyed to the natter generation nor
received by them so that there is no evidence from this channel, can be directly narrated by
Omniscient Supreme Perfect Existent ALL-H . This is not a contradiction with any historical
record what so ever.
Only atheists can deny this Possibility and Contingency since they disbelieve in Divinity and
Omnipotence of Divinity.

10:=On microscopic study of DIFFERENT TYPES of concepts about God/god and Gods/gods
may confusions of Missionaries are proved to be due to wrong ,incorrect and false assumption.
If they are not deliberately confusing Egyptian Henotheism ,Katheneism and Egyptian Monistic
Henotheism with Polytheism they are unintentionally doing the same. As they have no sympathy
with same way they use to study they verses of Nuvum Testamentum and Biblica Hebraica.
There are several reason for their ruthless attitude towards Qura:n and Ah:adi:s , but if they
had adopted a logical approach they would have not made such objections.
11:= In many languages of the world a single word is used for two
case sensitive words God and god [ plural : Gods and gods] . This
cause a hidden confusion which and shift in meanings with out
being deducted. The best way to overcome the problem is to write
God/ god or god/GodFor singular AND Gods/gods or gods/
Gods for plural.
12:=

Question: How alike are Indian Heneotheism and Egyptian Henotheism? And is
there any way in which the Egyptians could realistically have had significant
contact with Indians, enough to borrow elements from it or versa?, Or they have
been influenced by Indians or vice versa?
19

To answer the first, Indian Henotheism differs in several significant ways from
Egyptian religion. 1) There were and there still are multitudes of Indian Cults
and Sects which did and still do differ in the explanations of their version of
Henetheism. There may be a number of sects in Egyptian Religons but not only
less in number but their differences may be less significant. 2) Egyptian
Henotheism did not evoluted since it died latter with the end of Pharoahs. But
Indian Henotheism is still evoluting.
3) Natures of Culminations,Incarnations,Manifestations may be different in
between the majorities ofAncient Egypt and Ancient India.
Both countries of two different continents do share the
central notions of Henotheism, if not the details, of
Henotheism.
It may be noted that the examples from Sankrit Scriptures are provided
as evidences that such believes did exist and are not imaginary
products proposed to response some objections.

Comparision:=
It is pointed out that the many gods/Gods of Ancient Egyptians were
simply various forms, appearences, culminations and emanations) of a
single Supreme Being (God). This is where the idea of monotheism comes
in. A belief in a single Supreme Being is Monotheism. The belief that
there many gods/Gods is Polythiesim [from the point of view of PM]even if
they are all included in the One Single and Only Supreme Being. [ But
from the point of view of divisions of different types of concepts of Gods it
is Henotheism ].Therefore, , this Dogma of Manifestation is PolyMonotheistic. Or more correctly Henothiesm or Kathenotheism. Egyptian
gods/Gods like Horus ,Osiris, even Ra himself, were believed to be
"manifestations, , or personified attributes of Only One God", the invisible
God. These were not believed to be 20
separate gods/Gods, but incarnations

or manifestations of one and same God the one and only God, inseparable
from him.
Ancient Egyptian Religion is not Pure Polytheism:=
Ancient Egyptian Religion was not Pure Monotheism:=

As it is shewn that Egyptian Religion was not only Different from Pure
Monotheism but also from Pure Polytheism, it is also a mistake to consider it as
Monistic Monthiesm. It was in its form

one of the forms of Kathenotheistic

Polytheism or Kathenotheism .A kind of Henotheism.


Pharaoh himself exalted from an Incarnation of God to the Greatest among
all incarnations and manifistations of God. The most high Incarnation ,
which is higher than all other Culminations , Manifestations,Incarnations
et cetera.
Interesting parallels are found in some Indian Cults.Some examples from
Sanskrit Holy Scriptures [SHS] have been cited above.
Although it may be incorrect to consider that Indian Religions and Ancient
Egyptian Religions were one and the same with the only difference of
Nouns of Gods/gods , they do have similarities in them .Missionaries have
incorrectly assumed that there is a contradiction in two verses of Quran
in regard to the believes of Pharaoh and his Courtiers and Nobilities.
There is
no such alleged contradiction. Actually they have incorrectly assumed
somehow that Ancient Egyptian Religion was Pure Polytheism. But it is not
the case. Ancient Egyptian Religion was a form of Henotheism,
Polythiestic Monism and Kathenotheistic Polythiesm.
This complex nature of their religion is similar to the complex nature of
Ancient Indian Religion . So at least they are certainly not unique.
It is virtually impossible to suggest that two different countries of two
different continents borrowed from one another ,it is the almost certainly
the conclusion that parallel thoughts and ideas developed with some very
strong similarities between the religion systems of the two.
Quranic Statements and Ancient Egyptian Religion.
As Quranic statements must be viewed as according to the general
Egyptian Believes,it is clear that there is no Contradiction in the Text Of
Holy Qura:n. Rather Qura:n is just narrating
their believes , and two
21

narrate some thing is one thing and to contradict it self is another thing. I
there is a contradiction from the Polemical point of view in Henotheism,it
is beyond the scope of narration of their believes.To criticize a Dogma is
one thing and to quote a Dogma is another thing.
At these points Quran is not criticizing the believes of Pharaoh and his
Courtiers and Nobalities. Qura:n is just narrating their dialogues which
did occur in the past , and their respective speakers spoke according to
their Religion ,Theological Backgrounds and Dogmas.
EXPLANATION OF QURANIC VERSES AS ACCORDING TO THE HENOTHEISM.
As Missionaries have repeatedly attempted to explain these verses of Holy
Quran as according to Pure Polytheism , thus claiming that there is a
contradiction is Quran, the proper explanation of these verses\sentences
of Quran must be studied AS according to Henothiesm and Kathentheism.
The sentence of Pharoah to theChiefs, No god/God do I know for you

but myself... [Qur'an

28:38]only means
:= I am your only God/god. Such staqtements must be taken in Henotheistic and Kathenotheistic meaning
and not in Pure Monotheistic meaning.
The very same sense or meaning of Henotheism or Kathenotheism or Monolatry.

As Henotheism is the belief of a number of gods/Gods, worshipping or praysing one at a


time and regarding each as the Supreme, or even the only god/God as if there is no god/God
beside Him, while one is talking to him. Thus, If a person who is a claimant of deification,
believed to be a God/god can talk about himself as the only God/god and he knew no other
God/god beside himself for the people in his kingdom; there is no deviation from the general
believes which are held by him and his subjects.
[As an Only God/god the God/god doeth not know any other God/god . Pharaoh claimed not to
know any other God/god for his subjects Henotheistically and certainly not Monotheistically.]
The very same meaning Thou Art X Thou Art the Only God/god which I worship; Thou Art Y Thou art the
Only God/god I worship. If a person believer of Henotheism or Kathenotheism who is also a claimant of being
God/god can also say I am the only God/god of You [You: in plural meaning]

That may be defined as the worship of a number


of gods/Gods, one at a time, regarding each as the
supreme, or even the only, god while you are
talking/praying to him/Him.
22

Now as the Pharaoh regarded himself as a god/God he was saying the very same
thing for himself, and his nobilities, chiefs ,and courtiers who were also Henotheists
and Kathennotheists did under stand the words of the Pharaoh in the very same
sense as in the mind of Pharaoh.
If the Pharaoh of Moses [ Firaun u Musa] was a Pure Monotheist and if his Courtiers
were Pure Polytheists then there would have a contradiction , But both of them were
Henotheits or Kathenotheists or both. So there is no contradiction according to
Ancient Egyptian Religion.

And the chiefs of Pharaoh's people said: "Do you leave Musa[Moshe/Moses] and his people to make mischief
in the land and to forsake you and your gods/Gods?" .. [Qur'an 7:127]
At this time the Courtiers, Chiefs and nobilities were also speaking not as Pure Polytheists [PP]as incorrectly
assumed by missionaries and those who have missed the point, but as Henotheists and Kathenothiests.Since
these two also allow to state a number of Gods/gods as well in a single sentence.It may appear contradictory
to a Pure Monotheist or a Pure Polytheist yet it does not appear contradictory to a Henotheist at all.
At one time a Henotheist may acknowledge a number of Gods/gods and at other time claim any one of them
as the only God/god , [ some time this may be explained as he is the One that is Manifested in a number of
Gods/gods including himself as well in the manifestations]. This does not mean that he is not the
Manifestation, but it only means that the Supreme Being may be called by the nouns of His manifestations
and any one of the manifestation may be ascribed by the qualities and attributes of the Supreme Being of
Whom he is the manifestation. But at other times the distinction between Manifestation and the Manifested
are maintained and are considered. This makes things very clear that Qura:n is not contradicting It Self but
stating different statements of the Henotheistic Religion of Ancient Egypt.
We have quoted from ancient India just to prove that such believes are not just inventions to defend Quranic
Truth but did exist and do exist in the world.

SOME POLEMICAL DISCUSSIONS:=


If there has been no evidence in the least meaning of the word evidence, that there are some similarities
between Asian India and African Egypt in their respective religious believes even then the objection of
Missionaries would have been incorrect, since it is based upon the baseless, and proof-less supposition that
Ancient Egyptian Religion was a Pure Polytheism. Since in pure polytheism the claims like (i) Only One
God/god, (ii) Several Gods/gods contradict each other.
But in Henotheism such statements are not contradictory.
So if it can be supposed with out any evidence that Ancient Egyptian Religion was PP then it can be equally
supposed even if there was no evidence that It was a form of Henotheism. So the probability of each one
would have been exactly equal.

23

But in presence of evidences it is not the case.


So the objection based on a false supposition is it self a proof that Missionaries have committed a great error.
AkhenAten was a monotheistic Pharaoh. Even the Egyptian Monotheistic Pharaohs God is spoken by Akhen
Aten as if God/god Aten is the Pharaoh himself who is the Incarnation, Embodiment of Aten. So if a
Monotheistic Pharaoh could have such an approach, a Henotheistic Pharaoh would have greater tendency to
declair himself as an Incarnation of God [Supreme Being] or the God Incarnate or Incarnated God or
IncarnatenGod.

To assume that Pharaoh of Moses was a Monotheist according to Qura:n implies


that the assumer is claiming that this Pharaoh was Aten Akhen. Since he is the only
Pharaoh who was a Monotheist. Yet he might be an Incarnatist rather than a non
incarnist. But such implications are not correct.

For sake of an argument if he was this Pharaoh then this means that at the time of
Moses there were still some Courtiers who were Henotheists. Pharaoh had taken no
steps to convert them to his Monotheism at least up to that time.
The claim that the Pharaoh claimed to be the only God/god [ that he knew no other
God/god] in the Monotheistic meaning was interesting consequences. This
consequence is unacceptable.

The claim that Quran hath committed error in regard to the believes of Pharaoh and
his courtiers is as incorrect as the claim that Egyptian Monotheism is the cause of
Hebraic Monotheism .
If it is asked that is there a contradiction in Henotheism the answer is that
if there is even then to quote or to report a contradiction is one thing and
to contradict is an other thing. If Henotheism is a Self Contradictory
Dogma then it is not that Quran is contradicting Itself as incorrectly
supposed but Quran is just quoting two contradictory statements of two
one of Pharaoh and other of his courtiers. In this case it is not the case
that One Holy Verse is Contradicting the other Holy Verse, but Pharaoh
and his courtiers contradicted each other and Quran only reports their
statements.

24

SOME DEFINATIONS:

1]Kathenotheism is a belief that multiple deities exist, and different


deities are supreme among them at different times.

2]Monolatrism
Monolatrism or Monolary is belief in multiple deities/Deties
but worship of only one of THEM at a time as if the
worshipped One is the Only Deity at the time.
It is time dependent oneness.
3]Henotheism:=

According to the American Heritage Dictionary,


Henotheism is the belief in one god without denying the
existence of others. Hinduism is a classic example of this
belief in practice. Hindus generally worship one god, yet
acknowledge that there are many other gods that can be
worshiped as well. The religion of the ancient Greeks and
their worship of the Olympians is another well-known
example, with Zeus being the supreme ruler of eleven
other gods. All twelve were worshiped, each individually
by a different sect or temple.
4:= The word Monolatry/Monolatrism is based upon the
Greek roots monos, which means one and latreia, which
means service or religious worship. It seems to have been
first used by Julius Wellhausen to described a type of
polytheism in which only one god is worshipped even
though the existence of other gods is accepted. The
reason for the difference in treatment is the premise that
only one of the many gods actually deserves to be
25

worshipped often this may be due to a special


relationship the god has with the people in question.
5:= Summodeism, may be defined as the worship of a

Supreme Being who sits at the head of a pantheon of


other Gods/gods who are just s manifestations ,
incarnations,culminations etcof this High god/God or
Supreme Being . Thus, in a summodeistic system, the
existence of multiple gods only occurs because a single,
high god/God is able to incarnate, to manifest and to
culminate into many different Gods/gods.
Manifestation:= There are two different meanings of Manifestation
1] If a thing becomes some thing that it is initially not with or with out conversion,
mutation etc it is called Manifestation.
2] To become known through some thing other that itself
There is a big difference between being a manifestation of something (something that
was made known) in the first meaning and the second meaning. In this article we have
used the word in the first meaning.

Incarnation:= Special case of Manifestation [in the first meaning].


To Manifest in a corporeal thing.
Manifestation is a general word in regard to its firt meaning than
incarnation and incarnation is its special case.
For example if a thing manifest in spirit or in a spiritual being or a
human being the word manifest is correct for all these cases. But the
last one is called incarnati

26

to mistaking Kathenotheism or Henotheism


for Pure Monotheism or Pure Polytheism.

27

28

You might also like