Having discussed the course and purpose of the sun Timothy Jay Schwab of The God Culture next goes on to wax eloquent about the course and purpose of the moon. There are four videos on this subject in his Answers in Enoch series. As ever the videos are packed with information but in this article I will be trimming away the fat and leaving the meat.
This first video is an hour and twenty minutes long but it should have been much shorter. The gist of it is that Tim proves from Enoch the moon is not the measure for days, weeks, months, and years. That honor belongs to the sun alone. All the while he is doing this he in engaged in a pissing contest with a Youtube channel he refuses to name. Apparently this channel made a critical response to Tim's videos about the sun which rubbed him the wrong way. Tim was so offended he will no longer be recommending that channel to his viewers.
36:33 Now, again, we're not going to chart the moon's course as we did the sun. Uh, believe me your head would spin and it's just not necessary to go there for now and doesn't make for a good YouTube video. If someone wants to do that do it great wonderful. If the other channel wants to do that well, why don't you start by charting the sun because you haven't done that. You covered Jubilees and Enoch and you didn't chart the Sun and you didn't chart the moon yet you criticized this channel, uh, essentially, for not charting the moon because we're not foolish. Um, you know we're just not going to do that to people and yet then we can't possibly understand the moon's course because we didn't chart it like we did the sun. Well, you didn't chart either so why don't you go charting and stop throwing stones from your glass house. How about that? You know this is what we get so many times in criticism, uh, and it's a shame that that channel led there because we've supported them for many years we've even sent many people to to their Channel. We won't anymore
This video is interwoven all throughout with such petty snark. It's pretty funny. In fact at several points Tim talks like a caveman because apparently the unnamed channel claimed he said the moon was evil.
1:55 Here it is in plain English because we had another Channel who said some things that we want to clear up right now. Moon good. Moon okay. Moon holy, faithful, witness we love Moon. We even love the people who use the moon as the measure in error but the error we don't love neither does Yahusha by the way. Error bad. Moon good. Moon not bad. Error is bad. The error of men is really bad. That is what we address regarding this and we've never called the moon itself error nor does this title actually.
56:09 We love moon. Moon good.
It's absolutely hilarious that Tim has taken criticism to heart so much so that he has been reduced to talking like a caveman.
But why won't Tim chart the movement of the moon as he did the sun? Because it's foolish and would make your head spin and would not make for a good Youtube video? Those are not valid reasons and don't explain his refusal to chart the moon's course. Does he know there is a Youtube Channel where a guy drinks a glass of water a day and it has been ongoing since 2011? There is a series of two-to-four-hour-long video critiques of the awful new Disney Star Wars trilogy which has millions of views. And Tim thinks charting the course of the moon would not make for a compelling YouTube video? Tim's audience is so thirsty for content that they literally beg him to make more! In the meantime here is a video of the lunar analemma.
Slide after slide shows verses from Enoch and Jubilees saying that the Sun alone is the measure of days, weeks, and years. Here is one of many:
56:12 We read in jubilees 2:9 "And Elohim appointed the sun to be a great sign on the earth" for what? A very specific purpose in which one can never attribute to the moon, period. "For days, for sabbaths, and for months, and for feasts and for years, and for sabbaths of years, and for jubilees, and for all seasons of the years. And Genesis agrees with this
Tim claims that this verse in Jubilees agrees with Genesis! But that is not the case and at no point in this video does Tim actually cite Genesis which reads as follows:
14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
One would think Timothy Jay Schwab would cite Genesis at least once in his series about the sun and the moon but he does not. Not one single time. Instead he relies on Enoch and Jubilees which both contradict Genesis when it comes to the purpose of the moon which is, along with the sun and stars, for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years.
The main subject of the second video in this series about the moon is eclipses and how Enoch accounts for them. It is abundantly clear that Tim has no idea what he is talking about as he confuses lunar eclipses with solar eclipses and even says sometimes the sun moves in front of the moon.
31:13 This movement of the moon is very hard to chart, uh, and we're not going to do it but it's not necessary in order to understand. Once again the opportunity for eclipses arises as the moon turns back and recedes behind the sun. This would cause an eclipse uh in a certain area of the world at certain times, uh, of, you know, certain moments. Uh, both lunar and solar eclipses are explained by this dynamic as the moon could be in front at some times and the sun could be in front at some times, uh, from a certain perspective. Remember they are the same size according to Enoch we'll show you those scriptures in a second, well in a few minutes. Another time the sun in front of the moon. So, in both cases you got an eclipse. If the perspective catches them in the same exact position at that moment, which is what would have to happen, it's what we call a full eclipse, right or otherwise it's partial. Pretty easy to understand.
Eclipses do not debunk Enoch. Uh, actually, they debunk modern scientism who actually has a very poor explanation for this dynamic. Enoch accounts for them and very well and very scientifically.
First of all the sun NEVER gets in front of the moon. NEVER. That has never happened and it will never happen because the sun is stationary sitting at the center of the solar system which the earth and moon orbit. Enoch does not say in chapter 74 that the moon recedes BEHIND the sun. It does not even make sense to say "the moon turns back and recedes behind the sun" because for that to happen the moon would have to be moving TOWARDS the sun and thus it would not be receding. This is an addition inserted by Tim. Verse 6 does say the moon "recedes from the sun" which means the moon moves AWAY from the sun, not BEHIND it. A prior slide shows this verse.
 |
| 25:06 |
Second of all SOLAR eclipses occur when the moon passes in front of the sun while LUNAR eclipses occur when the earth passes between the sun and the moon. During a lunar eclipse the shadow of the earth is cast on the surface of the moon. Those are facts. What Tim is saying is not fact but unscientific garbage.
Tim will next go on to "prove" his theory that Enoch charts out the course of eclipses by showing us a chart computing solar eclipses for the next ten years. Admittedly, within Tim's Enochian Sun and Moon schema it sounds plausible that the sun and moon moving through portals with the moon moving backwards until the twain meet could provide the explanation for solar eclipses. But it is quite telling that Tim has NOTHING to say about lunar eclipses. Here is a chart from the same website as his solar eclipse chart.
How does Enoch explain that there are less lunar eclipses than there are solar eclipses? If Enoch accounts for there being 2-5 solar eclipses per year, a number Tim gives at around 26:31, how does he account for there being years without lunar eclipses? Tim does not say. He does not say a single word about lunar eclipses in this video. Neither Tim nor Enoch offer an explanation for lunar eclipses except to say:
Uh, both lunar and solar eclipses are explained by this dynamic as the moon could be in front at some times and the sun could be in front at some times, uh, from a certain perspective.
That is totally ridiculous as the sun NEVER gets in front of the moon. That has never been observed any where or any time. Tim doubles down on this nonsense in the comment section.
This commenter wants to know how lunar eclipses happen and instead of explaining how the moon goes dark during a lunar eclipse Tim repeats his talking points and then when pressed stops responding. That's because he has NO answer to the question of how lunar eclipses occur.
Yes, I know that is NOT Tim's model. But it's the same as
Rob Skiba's model and Tim uses his model in part 4 of this series about the moon. Two things are to be noted here. First of all picture the sun moving in concentric circles from the center of the image to the edge and back. Now, picture the moon moving in the same pattern but much slower and erratically. That would be an approximation of what Enoch's system looks like. That full system is what Tim is refusing to map out for his audience. Basically Tim is saying, "Trust me bro," when it comes to the moon and that simply won't fly. To prove his system he needs to map out the courses of the sun and moon together tracing their analemma. He does not do this and contrary to what one commenter said the analemmas of the sun and the moon do not match up with what Enoch writes or what Tim has charted as they both move in figure eight patterns up and down the sky while Tim has them moving in concentric circles.
The sun's analemma is proof that the earth is tilted because if that were not the case then the sun would not move across the sky in a figure eight pattern but would never move at all.
If you looked at the Sun at the same time each day, from the same place, would it appear at the same location in the sky? If the Earth were not tilted, and if its orbit around the Sun were perfectly circular, then, yes, it would. However, a combination of the Earth's 23.5 degree tilt and its slightly elliptical orbit combine to generate this figure "8" pattern of where the Sun would appear at the same time throughout the year. The pattern is called an analemma.
Tim discusses the suns's analemma in video four and claims it is not proof the earth is tilted or wobbling but it is proof of perspective and that the sun moves.
19:26 They use circular reasoning and claim that this anathema (he means analemma) is evidence. They're actually using it as evidence uh yet they need to prove it ever happens in the first place. That is not evidence of a wobble it is evidence of perspective, optical perspective just as we're showing you here.
Obviously we see this pattern because of perspective. Everything we see is perspective but we do not see this pattern because the sun moves as Tim claims. It only appears to move. It is simply a fact proven definitively in our modern times by photography and astronauts that the earth orbits the sun which is stationary. Only arrogant blowhards like Timothy Jay Schwab continue to deny that fact.
Second of all there is no reason for darkness to exist on a flat earth because there is NOTHING stopping the light of the sun! There would NEVER be night if the earth were flat. The sun would always be seen as it rotates across the horizon. It would never set. The darkness on this map is arbitrary because in reality there would be no object to stop or absorb the light of the sun.
To sum up video 2 neither Enoch nor Timothy Jay Schwab give a sufficient explanation for eclipses, Tim refuses to chart the path of the moon and fully prove his claims, Tim falsifies the text of Enoch by claiming he said the moon recedes behind the sun when Enoch says no such thing, and the flat earth model does not account for night because there is nothing stopping the light of the sun which would never set if the earth were indeed flat. This video is incredibly ignorant and deceptive!
The thing is though the other channel Tim is engaging with NEVER mentions The God Culture or their sloppy research or even alludes to The God Culture. This whole video is an exercise in paranoia. Instead of dealing with real issues and criticism like I offer Tim prefers to construct and burn down straw men. However, there is one interesting thing in this video which requires comment. Tim asks, "Does the modern day Bible canon support a 364 day?"
10:17 Does the modern Bible Canon actually say the year is 364 days?
11:34. Yes is the answer. The modern Bible Canon does support the sun calendar.
23:20 I know then they'll say,"But that's just the Dead Sea Scrolls that's not the modern Bible Canon." Uh, yep it is.
Tim asks if the modern Bible canon supports a 364 day year. But instead of actually quoting from the modern Bible canon Tim defaults to the Dead Sea Scrolls!! He even goes so far to call the Dead Sea Scrolls the modern Bible canon when that is very clearly not the case as Tim in his other videos repeatedly says the modern day Bible canon is a creation of the Pharisees! And he STILL fails to cite anything from Genesis but relies heavily on Enoch and Jubilees which both contradict Genesis in giving the sun the preeminence.
The fourth and final video in this series is mostly about the Cepher Bible and how they use a wrong translation of Enoch and thus get the moon wrong. However the first twenty minutes is a farrago of unscientific nonsense with Tim attempting to prove the sun moves based on its analemma which I already mentioned above.
Here's the thing. RH Charles' translation of Enoch is not a pure translation. He amends the text to his liking in several places. This verse about the moon, Enoch 74:13, is just one place where he is doing not translation but also interpretation by fixing the text rather than giving us what the text says exactly. The other verse Charles changes is much more significant and I have yet to hear Tim discuss it because after all he is a dishonest schlub who tells people they need to keep the law but still shaves! In the Book of Enoch, Enoch is called the Son of Man.
Enoch 71:14 And he came to me and greeted me with his voice and said to me, “You (are) that Son of Man who was born for righteousness, and righteousness dwells on you, and the righteousness of the Head of Days will not forsake you.” -George Nickelsburg and James Vanderkam translation
Enoch 71:14 And he (i.e. the angel) came to me and greeted me with His voice, and said unto me 'This is the Son of Man who is born unto righteousness, And righteousness abides over him, And the righteousness of the Head of Days forsakes him not.' -RH Charles translation
Now, I am not going to go in depth here on this subject but Tim, if he is reading this, needs to address this problem. RH Charles' translation is not correct and he notes that in the footnotes. Tim knows its there because he discusses it in the video and approves of the correction. He also excoriates the Cepher bible compliers for using an older translation of Enoch saying Charles' is better. Does he not know there have been translations of Enoch since Charles published his? I am sure he does but Tim does not care to compare versions. Tim's uncritical appropriation of Charles' translation of Enoch along with his introduction to the book and this series of videos shows how ignorant he is about this famous second temple period book.
%20%5BkVujnxGlbvQ%20-%20718x418%20-%2048m34s%5D.png)
