The God Culture: Atlantis, Lemuria, Tenochtitlan, and The Book of Maccabees

Timothy Jay Schwab of The God Culture most certainly believes in the antediluvian existence of the mythical kingdoms and continents known as Lemuria and Atlantis. He does not say much about them in his videos but he does mention them often in the comment section of his videos and he refers to them in his book The Search for King Solomon's Treasure as being buried beneath the sediment of the flood. But what evidence does he have for the existence of those fabled realms? 

Let's start with Lemuria. Lemuria is an allegedly sunken continent posited in 1864 by the zoologist Philip Sclater to account for the disparate distribution of lemur fossils to be found in India and Madagascar.

The anomalies of the mammal fauna of Madagascar can best be explained by supposing that... a large continent occupied parts of the Atlantic and Indian Oceans... that this continent was broken up into islands, of which some have become amalgamated with... Africa, some... with what is now Asia; and that in Madagascar and the Mascarene Islands we have existing relics of this great continent, for which... I should propose the name Lemuria!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemuria

That's actually a rather boring and normal scientific theory which has gone out of fashion over the years due to the discovery of plate tectonics and continental drift, two things that Timothy Jay Schwab rejects. It was the Theosophists who constructed a whole mythology around Lemuria concerning human origins. What does Timothy have to say about Lemuria? That it might have been founded by Cain in the area of the Pacific Ocean.

The Mystery of Cain: Part 1. Answers In Jubilees 20

36:04  He could have settled anywhere, in the Pacific perhaps founding maybe even the fabled Lemuria which is a nephilim kingdom because the nephilim took it over which is no surprise because Cain's lineage did in fact mate with nephilim, well, with angels to create and procreate the nephilim. But we find it far more likely he traveled even further east to higher ground. Why? Well, Cain would have known that the earth was going to be flooded. See, Adam knew this prophecy according to several accounts. We actually do cover that. We are not going to go into detail on this because this is an educated guess and no more because no one has found the road sign yet saying "Cain lived here." Just hasn't happened. 

If you follow the 10th parallel to the east from the Philippines specifically from the Garden of Eden area above ground through the Pacific you end up in south Mexico. Well, that's odd because there is an ancient city there built on top of a more ancient city, no one really knows how old it is so we don't have any data to prove it's exactly that old and this is definitely Cain's, we don't, we are speculated, speculating in an educated manner here. Here's what we find odd though and we've even heard Steve Quayle and others I believe mentioning this if I have that right. Tenochtitlan actually has the name of Cain's son and that's right there in south Mexico. Enoch the magician not the good one and that just happens to fit Cain naming his first city after Enoch. Can you fully prove that out? Well maybe you can we cannot, not right now but it is an interesting thought.

There's a lot of things happening in this little section. First of all Tim mentions that Lemuria was located in the Pacific and was a nephilim kingdom. How does he know that? What is his source for information about Lemuria? The man who posited its existence placed it in the Indian Ocean, not the Pacific so the location is wrong. As for it being a nephilim kingdom or any kingdom at all? Well, Tim may not get his information directly from the Theosophists but that is ultimately from where any information about Lemuria's inhabitants originates because it is they who erected a mythology surrounding it. There simply is no historical record of Lemuria whatsoever.

Second of all to be noticed is Tim's method. He mentions that after being banished for killing Abel Cain journeyed east. Remember, he is working from the supposition that not only did Adam and Eve live in the Philippines but also that there was no ocean until after the flood. Instead there are several mega-rivers that water the Earth. How did Cain and his family traverse those mega-rivers??

Did he ford them with a boat? That would make Cain the world's first boat builder and not Noah. How would he and his whole family be able to make that journey? Tim does not say and he likely has not taken into account his pre-flood geography which has mega-rivers surrounding both the Philippines and the Americas which would impede Cain and his family from making an 8,000 mile trek around the world.

However they did it Cain and his family walked east across all the mountains, even clearing the Mariana Trench, crossed the mega-rivers surrounding both the Philippines and the Americas, and made their way to the location of Mexico City which, being that there is no ocean, means they have climbed to quite a height since what we know as Mexico would be a huge mountain comparable to Mt Everest to someone dwelling on the ocean floor. Cain climbed so high because he knew the flood was coming in about 1,000 years so he had to prepare to survive it (wherever Tim got that information from it is certainly not from the Scriptures.)  He then built Tenochtitlan. Cain and his family have traveled over 8,000 miles at this point. 

manila to mexico city miles

Note that Tim's implied assertion that Tenochtilan and the Philippines both lie along the 10° parallel is wrong.  Tenochtitlan lies at 19° N and Tubbatha Reef, where Tim says the Garden of Eden lies and where man originated, is at 8° N.  

That is a difference of 11° which is fairly significant. Now, Tim does not say if you draw a line along the 10° N latitude line you end up exactly in Tenochtitlan but you end up in Southern Mexico. That is simply not true. If you followed the 10° N line around the world you will cross through the middle of Costa Rica. That can clearly be seen on the map in his video. The line does not cross through Southern Mexico. 

That means there is a lot of hiking for old Cain and his family to do to get to where modern day Mexico City lies which is in Central Mexico. That's approximately 2,000 miles north of Costa Rica if he followed the 10° N line! Lest Tim think this is nitpicking, accuracy is the goal here. Can he not even read his own map which shows the 10° N crossing though Costa Rica and not Southern Mexico? He does not even have Tenochtitlan in the right place but locates it closer to the Yucatan Peninsula in the south. Tenochtitlan is in central Mexico not southern Mexico. This idiot boasts about "restoring biblical geography" and he can't even get modern day geography correct?? Unbelievable! It's no small wonder Tim cannot properly read and interpret the directions in Mela and the Periplus of the Erythean Sea.

And how does anyone know what Cain did, what cities he built, what Lamech did, or the names of his progeny and all the skills they learned if he and his family migrated 8,000 miles away!?  Of course the whole thesis that Cain might have built Tenochtitlan is trashed by the fact that the flood destroyed EVERYTHING including any city Cain built! Cain absolutely did not build Tenochtitlan which is a city we only know of from this side of the flood and it's only about 700 years old. Anyone who thinks Cain built a city in Central Mexico is ridiculous.

On what basis does Tim believe any of that nonsense? Well, he name drops Steve Quayle as a believer in this hypothesis. Now, if you don't know who that nut job is do have a look-see at his website. Maybe buy some precious metals or a shortwave radio if he still sells them. I had the pleasure of listening to his shortwave broadcast way back in the day and he's just a regular old kook taken in by nephilim and giants and other conspiracies. Not all conspiracies are false but neither are all conspiracies true. He's not the most credible person. Nor are the "others" Tim mentions as having made this assertion any more credible seeing as one of those "others" is none other than Zechariah Sitchin.

Zechariah Sitchin, The Lost Realms, pgs 41-42

Are we, then, encountering in the traditions of the seven Nahuatl tribes echoes—olden memories—of the banished line of Cain and his son Enoch? 

A Babylonian text based in the opinion of scholars on an earlier Sumerian text from the third millennium b.c. enigmatically relates a conflict, ending in murder, between an earth-tilling and a shepherding brother, just as the biblical Cain and Abel were. Doomed to “roam in sorrow,” the offending leader, called Ka’in, migrated to the land of Dunnu and there “he built a city with twin towers.” 

Twin towers atop the temple-pyramids were a hallmark of Aztec architecture. Did this commemorate the building of a “city with twin towers” by Ka’in? And was Tenochtitlan, the “City of Tenoch,” so named and built because Cain, millennia earlier, “built a city and called the city by his son’s name, Enoch”? 

Have we found in Mesoamerica the lost realm of Cain, the city named after Enoch? The possibility certainly offers plausible answers to the enigma of Man’s beginnings in these domains. 

Sitchin, like Tim, is careful to not say Tenochtitlan is definitely the city Cain built but only raises the possibility. However, elsewhere Tim is most emphatic about this identification.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebZiIzAYyNA&lc=UgwbzkRbaUTTC4OoATN4AaABAg.9LFiMEP7xSx9LFkKHCn1c0

Rocky: Hello. Where is the Land of Nod, East of Eden, the place of exile of Cain?

The God Culture: That would make it East of Havilah where Adam and Eve lived in the Philippines. It could be on the bottom of the ocean floor covered by the Flood but there is a place in South America that fits. An ancient society who called their city TENOCHtilan with the name Enoch within. Cain named his first city after his son Enoch. Yah Bless.

Again, what is his source for this information? It's a guess. An educated guess Tim calls it, though I dispute the educated part since he places Tenochtitlan in South America this time, but a guess nonetheless. So, this is Tim's method. It's all guesswork. He has absolutely nothing factual on which to build his assertions regarding Cain building Tenochtitlan.

Let's get back to Lemuria for a moment. Sometimes Tim is very sure that Lemuria existed.

From Where Did Demons Originate? When? How? Who? What? Answers In Jubilees: Part 16

Constance McDonough: Atlantis perhaps perished due to the Great Flood.

The God Culture: Indeed. 2 Esdras says the world was only 1/7th or about 15% water before the Flood. Atlantis and Lemuria are on the bottom of the ocean floor under massive amounts of Flood sediment. Yah Bless.

Other times Timothy Jay Schwab is not so sure Lemuria existed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffhytbvGRMo&lc=Ugy9A30ZBsAPASZxnaN4AaABAg

Only Hebrew existed at Creation. No other language can produce even archaeology to precede that. The notion that Hebrew is only 3,000 years old is another very illiterate assumption of scholars who ignore much of history sticking their fingers in their ears such as one of the very oldest historic documents in all of history called the Bible. They are operating as illiterates to call a stone carving from a pagan king even with his occult religion while throwing the Bible out in willing ignorance. Lemuria watch our Rivers from Eden and you can see where the shape would have flowed. It would not include the Philippines. Africa does not connect to the Indian Ocean. It has a trench system surrounded known as the Gihon River. Those calling themselves scientists who look at islands and continents connected with the ocean floor are incapable of basic reason especially with these supposed Land Bridge Theory. These are nonsense and unproven and unprovable in any sense. Just wild, very wild, guesses not hypothesis because they do not involve any actual expertise other than steeping oneself into an occult paradigm. The Bible actually lays out the Pre-Flood world. It's right and has been all along. Using their own logic, the Bible far precedes them thus must be the origin of all discussions about the topic. It's funny how they use that but when it comes to themselves the rule doesn't apply. It's willing ignorance (2 Pet. 3). Lemuria is not actual history though likely it did exist but it did not include Africa, continental Asia nor the Philippines as there are very deep Mega-Rivers which separate these areas. Lemuria and Atlantis were overwhelmed with water. It's so hard to figure out those accounts refer to the Flood of the Bible which was world-wide. Atlantis and Lemuria are on the bottom of the ocean covered by massive amounts of Flood sediment in which we have no equipment capable of excavating. Yah Bless.

Remember in the the first example Tim said Lemuria was a "nephilim kingdom." Now he says "Lemuria is not actually history." What sense does that make? None at all. 

Let's skip over to Atlantis. Tim says Atlantis was also a nephilim kingdom. In fact he seems to be privy to a lot of detail about its founding.

Who Were The Nephilim? Answers In Jubilees: Part 14

Pitt 83: Is it possible that the Nephilim during their time on the earth occupied the land we eventually called the continent of Atlantis ?? Wiped out during the flood ??

The God Culture: Indeed. Atlantis was a Nephilim kingdom ruled by the 10 Giant, Nephilim sons of Poseidon who was a Watcher Fallen Angel. The legend is a Nephilim account of their history. It was the empire which warred with the Earth bringing it to destruction and Yahuah saved it and wiped out their kingdom and all of them. As man, there is only record of 1 ship of Nephilim surviving the Flood. Watch Did Ron Wyatt Find the Nephilim Ark. Yah Bless.

How does Tim know any of this? Where is he getting his information from? How does he know ten sons of Poseidon ruled Atlantis? How does he know the nephilim Atlanteans warred with the Earth and brought it to destruction? Certainly not from Enoch or Jubilees which do not mention Atlantis. The oldest and most reliable information about Atlantis comes from Plato. Beyond him there are no ancient references to Atlantis. In modern times all fantastic information about Atlantis ultimately originates with Ignatius Donnelly.

In 1882, he published Atlantis: The Antediluvian World, his best-known work. It details theories concerning the mythical lost continent of Atlantis. The book sold well and is widely credited with initiating the theme of Atlantis as an antediluvian civilization that became such a feature of popular literature during the 20th century and contributed to the emergence of Mayanism. Donnelly suggested that Atlantis, whose story was told by Plato in the dialogues of Timaeus and Critias, had been destroyed during the same event remembered in the Bible as the Great Flood. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignatius_L._Donnelly

Whether he knows it or not everything Tim has to say about Atlantis has its origins in Donnelly's book. in 1883 Donnelly published a sequel about the destruction of Atlantis titled The Destruction of Atlantis, Ragnarok: The Age of Fire and Gravel. I found a copy at Booksale at SM mall. The publisher is Steiner books. That would be the preeminent Theosophist and disciple of H.P. Blavatsky, Rudolf Steiner. Atlantis and Lemuria both play important roles in the cosmology of the Theosophists.

Now, I can continue to post more of Tim's comments about Lemuria, Atlantis, and Tenochtitlan and rightly mock him but that is not the point here. I want to point out that Tim BELIEVES all of this junk. He believes that Lemuria and Atlantis really did exist and were populated and ruled by nephilim, angel-human hypbrids. Some of whom survived the flood by building an ark as Tim teaches from Zechariah Sitchin's Lost Book of Enki. He also believes that Tenochtitilan was founded by Cain before the flood and named after his son Enoch. But on what basis? 

The truth is he has no firm historical basis for believing any of that. Now, this is funny because while there is no evidence for Lemuria or Atlantis having existed or that Cain founded Tenochtitlan which would have been wiped away by the floodwaters there is plenty of evidence that Antiochus Epiphanies defiled the temple by sacrificing a pig on the altar and that the Maccabees revolted against him. We know this primarily through the books of 1st and 2nd Maccabees. But Tim claims those well attested books are elaborate frauds.

Who Defiled The Temple? FINALLY, The Truth Exposed By the Dead Sea Scrolls

21:11 The first Antiochus Soter takes charge in 281 BC and what do we know of history? Well we just read he and his Greek successors do not force their way into Jerusalem. They don't do it. That's what they said in their true history not what Maccabees says which is a lie written by liars according to scripture. Messiah himself many times calls them such.

There is no one single quote that captures the essence of this video but that one will do. One must watch the video to really grasp what Tim is saying and he does say quite a lot. He reaches out far and wide grasping at the Dead Sea Scrolls and testimony compiled by William Whiston to disprove the narrative in Maccabees which is that Antiochus Epiphanies defiled the temple by sacrificing a pig on the altar and forced the Jews to submit to Hellenic customs which led Judas Maccabees and his sons to spearhead a rebellion against him which led to the expulsion of the Greeks from Jerusalem and to the cleansing of the temple. 

Tim rejects all of that saying that the only ones to defile the temple were the Maccabees who took over the priesthood. Now, that is very true. The Maccabees did in fact end up occupying the position of High Priest. Most notably Jonathan and Simon Maccabees held that position. But this does not mean that Antiochus Epiphanies never defiled the temple or that he did not attempt to force Hellenism on the Jews. Tim is even more explicit in his rejection of this history at the beginning of the video when he calls Maccabees propaganda.

5:49 "But Elohim did not permit the city to be delivered into the hands of the kings of Greece." Now ,what does that mean? We'll cover the history so you can see for yourself the actual written history which tells us Greece took Yahudia but peacefully and there is no story of the Greeks defiling the temple, period! Now, how do we know this? Read. "From the time of Antiochus," who's that? He was the ruler of that area for Greece as were his sons, grandson and so on all the way to Antiochus the IV known as Epiphanies. He is reported only in the book of Maccabees, and again those that are really quoting that in origin, as defiling the temple because it wasn't enough for Yahudia to pay their taxes and be controlled now he all of a sudden decided to just go and you know against even Alexander the great's wishes and attack Yahudia and defile the temple because he just had to do it with, uh, the sacrifice of a pig of course. Why? Because that would bring outrage. See, propaganda does that it brings outrage.

In this video and elsewhere Tim never explains just who wrote Maccabees as propaganda or when and why it was written. He never explains why Maccabees was accepted by the Jews as true history. In fact, in this video Tim never once attempts to analyze the contents of the Book of Maccabees. Not one time does Tim quote Maccabees in this video to show any inconsistencies to prove that it is a lie. That is pathetic. If I wanted to prove that a book was a lie I'd use its own words to convict it of falsehood the same way I have used Timothy Jay Schwab's own words to prove that he is a liar.

Has Tim even read the Books of Maccabees? If he did he would not say something so stupid like, "now he all of a sudden decided to just go and you know against even Alexander the great's wishes and attack Yahudia and defile the temple." 2 Maccabees tells us exactly why Antiochus attacked Jerusalem and defiled the temple.

1. 11 Now when this that was done came to the king's car, he thought that Judea had revolted: whereupon removing out of Egypt in a furious mind, he took the city by force of arms, 

1. 12 And commanded his men of war not to spare such as they met, and to slay such as went up upon the houses. 

1. 13 Thus there was killing of young and old, making away of men, women, and children, slaying of virgins and infants. 

1. 14 And there were destroyed within the space of three whole days fourscore thousand, whereof forty thousand were slain in the conflict; and no fewer sold than slain. 

1. 15 Yet was he not content with this, but presumed to go into the most holy temple of all the world; Menelaus, that traitor to the laws, and to his own country, being his guide: 

1. 16 And taking the holy vessels with polluted hands, and with profane hands pulling down the things that were dedicated by other kings to the augmentation and glory and honour of the place, he gave them away.

2 Maccabees 5:11-16

There it is. Antiochus Epiphanies thought there was a rebellion in Judea. That is why he sacked Jerusalem and defiled the temple. But why did he think there was a rebellion? Well, there are 4 chapters full of intrigue which answer that question. Too bad Timothy declines to cite any of that. Another thing Timothy fails to mention is that Antiochus, at hearing the temple had been restored, repented of the evil he had done. That story can be found in 1 Maccabees 6:1-16. If Maccabees is lying propaganda meant to outrage the people against the Greeks why would a narrative of Antiochus' repentance be included? What kind of propaganda value does that have? 

But Tim does not discuss any of that history even once. Instead he jumps right into the fire and calls the Book of Maccabees, he does not specify but I assume he means all four of them, a lie. He does so on the strength of the Dead Sea Scrolls and a certain work by William Whiston which is about Alexander the Great and not Antiochus. He offers no other sources to uphold his claim.

Bust of Antiochus Epiphanies

2:43 Now we're told in Maccabees and let's be clear the Greeks were very good at recording history and they do not record this story.

Now, this is true. The Greeks did keep historical records but not everything they wrote has been handed down to us. Much of it has been lost to time. For instance the records containing the exploits of Antiochus Epiphanies are all fragmentary. They do not contain the story of Antiochus sacking Jerusalem. But does that mean it did not happen? There is no recorded history in Egypt of an exodus of 600,000 Hebrew slaves. Are we then to deny that the exodus happened? There are exactly ZERO contemporary historical reports of Jesus Christ from the Greeks or Romans. All we have are the Gospels which were written decades after his ascension. Does that means Jesus did not exist?  

Tim does not even attempt to tell us about the history of Antiochus Epiphanies that exists outside of Maccabees. All that history can be read online.

https://www.livius.org/articles/person/antiochus-iv-epiphanes/

Those are all the sources we have for the life of Antiochus Epiphanies. They are all fragmentary. We have nothing close to a full biography of the man. 

In his usual manner Tim mocks what he does not understand. He boldly claims that Antiochus defiled the temple for no real reason at all. "Now he all of a sudden decided to just go and you know against even Alexander the great's wishes and attack Yahudia and defile the temple." That is simply not true and if Tim had bothered to examine the text of especially 2nd Maccabees he would know this.

There is more happening in the Maccabees than just Antiochus Epiphanies defiling the temple.  There is a lot of intrigue between the high priest and others. There is a lot of intrigue with the Selucids. Is all of that history a lie too? But I will not get into all that because the subject here is not the veracity of Maccabees per se but Timothy Jay Schwab's methods. And, as ever, we see his methods are shoddy and not deep and thorough at all. He wants us to believe that Atlantis and Lemuria are real despite there being no history to attest to their existence but we are to disbelieve the well-attested history contained in the Books of Maccabees because of a single line in the Dead Sea Scroll community's interpretation of Nahum. 

Whither the lion goes, there is the lion’s cub, [with none to disturb it] (ii, IIb).

[Interpreted, this concerns Deme]trius king of Greece who sought, on the counsel of those who seek smooth things, to enter Jerusalem. [But God did not permit the city to be delivered] into the hands of the kings of Greece, from the time of Antiochus until the coming of the rulers of the Kittim. But then she shall be trampled under their feet ...

Geza Vermes is well aware of this line from the Nahum commentary. He does not tell us what it means but the text within the brackets is added by the translator. Funny how in his book Rest: The Case for Sabbath, Tim calls this kind of addition fraudulent yet here accepts as truth the words in the brackets.

Note we removed the commentary injection in Geza Vermes’ translation in parentheses that claimed “when the sun’s orb is distant by its own fulness from the gate” as to mean sunset. That is fraud and misrepresentation as this occurs twice daily – once at sunrise and once at sunset. 

Rest:The Case for Sabbath pgs 234-235

In his introduction Geza Vermes tells us that what is within the brackets is HYPOTHETICAL.

Lacunae impossible to complete with any measure of confidence are indicated by dots in the translation. Texts supplied from a different manuscript of the same document appear between { }. Hypothetical but likely reconstructions are placed between [ ] and glosses necessary for fluency between ( ).

Dead Sea Scrolls, Geza Vermes, pg. 95

This is more of Tim's method at work. If a scholar has an interpretation he agrees with then he is great but if the scholar disagrees with Tim then he is an illiterate fraud. This is why Tim not only disagrees with preeminent Dead Sea Scroll scholar James VanderKam but also needlessly heaps scorn upon him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRHQOMfdmgE&lc=UgxH1aTSH_auLG6-zzV4AaABAg.9PfpFQNMUml9Qfmo8-EtAk

Vanderkam is still a scoffer however. He misses the most important elements and ignores the historicity of the community and can't see his nose in front of his face. These were not Essenes, they were the Temple Priests who have the ministry of keeping scripture throughout the ages. They defined the Bible Canon of their age and he doesn't. No scholar does. To then call in to question the very Bible endorsed by Messiah who launched His ministry there is inept and willing ignorance. He's a smart man but unfortunately not smart enough to see the obvious because he is living in a box. No thank you. Yah Bless.

With that assessment one wonders why VanderKam's commentary on Jubilees is listed as a source of note in the bibliography to Tim's own annotated Book of Jubilees. What does Tim mean that VanderKam "ignores the historicity of the community." Did he ever write that the community at Qumran did not exist? It's a pretty odd thing to say. Given VanderKam's body of work it does not make any sense. It's all a lot of arrogant hubris from Tim who thinks he is right, they are wrong, and no one can disprove anything he says.

I suppose Geza Vermes is an illiterate fraud because despite knowing the existence of the Nahum commentary he has this to say about Antiochus Epiphanies in his introduction:

With the conquest of the Holy Land by the Seleucids, or Syrian Greeks, in 200 BCE, the first signs appeared of Jews succumbing to a foreign cultural influence. In the apocryphal Book of Ecclesiasticus, dated to the beginning of the second century BCE, its author, Jesus ben Sira, a sage from Jerusalem, rages against those ‘ungodly men’ who have ‘forsaken the Law of the Most High God’ (xli, 8). But the real trouble started when Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175-164 BCE) officially promoted a Hellenizing programme in Judaea that was embraced with eagerness by the Jewish elite. The leader of the modernist faction was the brother of the High Priest Onias III. Known as Jesus among his compatriots, he adopted the Greek name of Jason, and set about transforming Jerusalem into a Hellenistic city, by building a gymnasium there and persuading the Jewish youth to participate in athletic games. As 2 Maccabees describes the situation:

So Hellenism reached a high point with the introduction of foreigncustoms through the boundless wickedness of the impious Jason, notrue High Priest. As a result, the priests no longer had any enthusiasm fortheir duties at the altar, but despised the temple and neglected thesacrifices; and in defiance of the law they eagerly contributed to theexpenses of the wrestling-school whenever the opening gong calledthem. They placed no value on their hereditary dignities, but cared aboveeverything for Hellenic honours.

(2 Mac. iv, 13-15)

Jason was succeeded by two other High Priests with the same Greek sympathies, Menelaus and Alcimus. In 169 BCE Antiochus IV visited Jerusalem and looted the Temple. But when in 167 he actually prohibited the practice of Judaism under pain of death and rededicated the Jerusalem Sanctuary to Olympian Zeus, the ‘abomination of desolation’, the opponents of the Hellenizers finally rose up in violent resistance.

Dead Sea Scrolls, Geza Vermes, pgs. 50-51

Vermes embraces the history laid out in Maccabees full stop. So, why does Tim continue to use this man's translation of the Dead Sea Scrolls? If he believes in a history that Tim says is a lie then how can Geza Vermes' translation of these texts be reliable? That's a real conundrum for Tim that he seems to not have considered. 

Tim has also likely not considered just why Vermes and other Dead Sea Scroll scholars believe the veracity of the history in Maccabees despite the Nahum fragment. It has to do with text 4Q248

The story told in this ten-line fragment, which contains only broken lines, resembles the account of Daniel xi concerning the ‘King of the North’ (Antiochus IV Epiphanes) who invades Egypt and ill-treats Jerusalem. For the editio princeps, see M. Broshi and E. Eshel, DJD, XXXVI, 192-200.

... in Egypt and Greece and ... Therefore they shall eat ... their [s]ons and their daughters in a siege in ... And (the Lord) shall cause [His] wind to pass [through] their court- yards and ... he shall come to Egypt and sell her dust and ... to the city of the Temple and shall capture her with all [her ... ] And he shall turn against the lands of the nations and shall return to Egyp[t] ... [And when the shattering of the power of the ho[ly] people [comes to an end] ... When all these [come into being] the children [of Israel] shall return ...

Dead Sea Scrolls, Geza Vermes, pg.. 404

Let's briefly examine that fragment from the Nahum commentary.

[Interpreted, this concerns Deme]trius king of Greece who sought, on the counsel of those who seek smooth things, to enter Jerusalem. [But God did not permit the city to be delivered] into the hands of the kings of Greece, from the time of Antiochus until the coming of the rulers of the Kittim. But then she shall be trampled under their feet ...

Demetrius is Demetirus III Eucareus who tried to enter Jerusalem in 88 BC. That means this passage was written after 88 BC. But which Antiochus is being referred to here? Is it the 4th, the 5th, the 7th?

It is difficult to determine definitively to which Antiochus the pesher is referring, since it could be Antiochus IV, who reigned during the outbreak of the Hasmonean revolt, or it could be Antiochus V, who reigned when the Temple was purged, or Antiochus VII, who besieged Jerusalem in 134 B.C.E

The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Hasmonean State, pg. 123-124

But let us suppose that it is Antiochus IV. That would mean from the time of Antiochus IV until the coming of the Kittim, the Romans, Jerusalem was not permitted by God to be delivered into the hands of the Greeks. Does that mean that when the Romans came Jerusalem was given over to the Kings of Greece? That is what the text says. But it makes no sense. Likely this means that from Antiochus IV to the coming of the Romans the city of Jerusalem was not given over to the heathen. But does that mean Antiochus IV did not defile the temple and sack Jerusalem? No. 

Think of it this way. From the time of George Washington until the war of 1812 God did not permit the USA to be delivered into the hands of the British. Does that mean that the British did not occupy the USA in the time of Washington? Of course not. We all know Washington defeated the British who were indeed occupying the USA during his time. Then the British attacked again in the war of 1812. The analogy is that Antiochus IV had indeed sacked Jerusalem but was defeated by the Maccabees and the city was not delivered again into the hands of the heathen until the Romans came. 

The above interpretation is just a brief alternative explanation of what the Nahum commentary means. Of course that all hinges on the identification of Antiochus in that passage as being Antiochus IV. I am not about to get into fully exegeting the Dead Sea Scrolls and show how they verify what happens in Maccabees. That is not the point here. The point is to show that Timothy Jay Schwab in his zeal to condemn the Maccabees has overlooked so much and based the strength of his conclusions on ONE FRAGMENT from the Dead Sea Scrolls. The point is to expose his unscholarly and slipshod research methods. For a major corrective I recommend chapters 1 and 6 of The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Hasmonean State.

The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Hasmonean State

Chapter 1 covers Antiochus Epiphanies and Dead Sea Scroll fragment 4Q248 while chapter 6 covers the Nahum commentary.

The point in this long article has been to expose the method of Timothy Jay Schwab of the God Culture and show once again what a poor researcher he really is. His method in all his videos and in all his books and teachings is the same. Deny historical realities and affirm unhistorical fantasies to the point that historical realties are twisted to fit a narrative that affirms the unhistorical fantasies. Thus in Tim's world angel-human hybrids built their own ark and survived the flood, ancient Greeks were circumnavigating Africa to find gold in the Philippines, the Golden Chersonese is the Philippines and not the Malay peninsula, the real temple priests were actually a schismatic desert sect, Filipinos are Israelites, Spanish and Chinese place names in the Philippines are actually Hebrew compound words, Noah landed on Mt Everest, and the earth is flat.