The God Culture: Etymology of Ophir Part 1, Aleph is Always "A"

Timothy Jay Schwab who is The God Culture has admitted he is not a linguist nor does he wish to be one. However, that has not stopped him from using linguistics in his vain attempts to prove the Philippines is Ophir. In his book The Search for King Solomon's Treasure Tim explains several etymologies for the word Ophir and why that leads to the Philippines. 

In my initial review of The Search for King Solomon's Treasure I briefly looked at Tim's etymologies for Ophir. This article will take a more in-depth look at one of those etymologies. 

The origin of the chemical symbol for gold, AU, is said to be the Latin Aurum or Aurea which we will determine in the next chapter is the equivalent of Ophir. This is the kingdom of gold for the Greeks which carried over into Latin but AUPYR is the origin of that reference as you will find thus the true origin of the chemical symbol for gold – AU. It is used twelve times in the Bible and with brilliance. The Bible offers markers along the way which lead us to the isles of the East in the Philippines and nowhere else. Scholars have been confused about the origin of this word but when you truly look at the Ancient Hebrew, you find the word for light as used in Genesis when God said let there be light. We will prove this is the same land.

Genesis 1:3 KJV

And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. Hebrew: Ôwr: אוֹר: light. (א is ALWAYS “A” not “O”)

Isaiah 24:15 KJV

Wherefore glorify ye the LORD in the fires, even the name of the LORD God of Israel in the isles of the sea. (LORD is YHWH, Yahuah) Hebrew: ûwr: אוּר: fires, light. (א is ALWAYS “A” not “U”)

Contrast this to another use of the same Hebrew word in Isaiah. Understand that there were no vowel points as the dots you see that supposedly differentiate these two words, the exact same otherwise, were inserted around 1000 A.D. or so by the Masoretes. They are the same word in Ancient Hebrew. As much as we appreciate the Textus Receptus and you will note we use the King James Version principally in our teachings which was translated from that manuscript, we also remain aware these vowel points did not exist for thousands of years prior and somehow these words could be read and understood without vowel points that entire time. Thus, we still do not actually need them much of the time or should test them often. This is redefined as a different word that is obviously the same use in this passage not fires but light and it is rendered in Isaiah as now beginning with an “U” in Strong’s Concordance and others but it’s an Aleph (א) which is always “A” not “U” nor “O.”

This verse even identifies the isles of the sea which we will later prove is Ophir even tying Ophir to this same word for light which is it’s true origin etymologically. AUR(אור) is “light” and insert PY(פי) for AUPYR and it renders “Mouth of Light.” This is a direct identification in Hebrew of the land where Yahuah God said “Let there be light.” This is because this word in Hebrew is really AUR not OWR nor UWR which  are truly ludicrous renderings especially when the first letter ALEPH (א) which is always “A,” could not be mistaken by a Hebrew scholar. As you can see, we have gone extremely deep into this topic even assessing the Hebrew word for word and letter for letter in this pursuit. We find Ophir to be the region of light known as the Land of Creation which you will find proves out completely as the Philippines.

We have what would be one of the largest oversights in Hebrew translation – one in which no actual Hebrew scholar could possibly err. We point this out early because we wish to establish a pattern you will identify in this story which has not only been suppressed in history but in Bible interpretation really working hand-in-hand. We are all to prove all things (1Thess. 5:21) lest we be deceived and the delusion in which we live, we were warned, is strong. Also, you will find we restore the name of God recorded over 6,800 times in the Hebrew Bible as YHWH never as Lord which taken back into Hebrew is the word Ba’al. We will provide charts with explanation in the back of this book because we pronounce this phonetically and you will find us using Yahuah in place of LORD in narration. Feel free to review that now if you feel the need. Let us commence with the Bible narrative.

The Search for King Solomon's Treasure, pgs 24-26

To cut straight to the chase, everything in the above few paragraphs is wrong. Take note Tim prefaces his comments by saying he appreciates the Textus Receptus but says there were no vowel points for thousands of years. Apparently he thinks the Hebrew portion of the Bible was translated from the Textus Receptus. This is wrong because the Textus Receptus is the Greek New Testament! What a boner. It's these little errors that add up to prove this man has no idea what he is talking about. 

Tim's errors hang on his claims Hebrew vowel points are unnecessary and the Hebrew letter Aleph is always translated A and never U or O. The fact is there are no vowels in Hebrew. There is no A, E, I, O, or U. It is the vowel points which aid the reader in correct pronunciation. Where Tim goes wrong is saying that two words which look the same must be the same word, have the same meaning, and we do not need vowel points, or apparently even context, to read and understand them correctly. 

The words to which he is referring are Strong's H216 and H217.

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/h216/kjv/wlc/0-1/

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/h217/kjv/wlc/0-1/

As you can see H216 and H217 are spelled with the same three letters but they have different vowel points on the second letter. This gives the words different pronunciations and definitions. H216 is translated light but never fire while H216 is mostly translated as fire. The one time it is translated light is in reference to fire.

Isaiah 50:11 Behold, all ye that kindle a fire, that compass yourselves about with sparks: walk in the light of your fire, and in the sparks that ye have kindled. This shall ye have of mine hand; ye shall lie down in sorrow.

To say these two words are the same word, have the same pronunciation, and have the same meaning is to ignore the context of the scriptures in which they are written. It's as stupid as if Tim said read and read are spelled the same therefore they should be pronounced the same and have the same meaning. These types of words are called homographs. They are words spelled the same yet which have different meanings. Such words include: address, mark, bat, and mean.  

It is the vowel points that primarily show us how the words are to be pronounced. Certain diacritics, including dots and dashes around the letters, indicate which vowel sounds to make. While it is true the vowel points used today were introduced at a late date it is not true they "were inserted around 1000 A.D. or so by the Masoretes." They were introduced much earlier. 

Vowel and cantillation marks were added to the older consonantal layer of the Bible between 600 CE and the beginning of the 10th century.

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

Another way the Hebrew Bible aids in pronouncing vowels is having certain consonants serve as vowels. This is called a mater lectionis. Tim does not mention this method. In fact he does not tell us how he is able to correctly pronounce Hebrew without the vowel points. He simply dismisses them, says they are a way to cover up the truth, and give his own definitions of H216 and H217 irrespective of the context in which he finds those words. 

There is simply no reason to dismiss the vowel points. I am not going to write a defense of them here except to say they weren't invented out of thin air. We can see evidence of correct Hebrew vowel pronunciation in the Septuagint. 

Presumably, the vowels of Biblical Hebrew were not indicated in the original text, but various sources attest to them at various stages of development. Greek and Latin transcriptions of words from the biblical text provide early evidence of the nature of Biblical Hebrew vowels. In particular, there is evidence from the rendering of proper nouns in the Koine Greek Septuagint (3rd–2nd centuries BCE) and the Greek alphabet transcription of the Hebrew biblical text contained in the Secunda (3rd century CE, likely a copy of a preexisting text from before 100 BCE).

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

Thus in 1 Kings 9:28 the Hebrew word for Ophir is translated Sophira. That gives us a good idea how the word H211 should be pronounced. 

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/h211/kjv/wlc/0-1/

Tim claims that because this word begins with Aleph the first letter should be translated as "A." If that is so then where does the Greek translation originate? Of course Tim is on record trashing the Septuagint so that argument is not going to hold much weight with him. Likewise the fact that words beginning with Aleph are not always translated with an "A" will also hold no weight with him as Tim absolutely despises real scholars and linguists.

Some of the words beginning with Aleph but not translated with an "A" or having an "A" pronunciation include: Ophir, Uphaz, El, obed, and omer. A full list of such words can be found here. Again, I know Tim will not care about anything on that list and call it all a lie from fake scholars. He is on record calling all Bibles, Bible dictionaries, and Bible concordances as being corrupt. 

35:00 What they're doing is, uh, changing the Bible through definitions, through concordances, and through, through Bible translation and that's what they've done. We are in a strong delusion but we can see through this and correct it.

https://philippinefails.blogspot.com/2024/05/the-god-culture-exposing-lies-in-our.html

If all Bible translations, dictionaries, and concordances are corrupt just how exactly are we supposed to see though this "strong delusion" and correct it? On what basis can we trust anything Tim says when he admits the very documents he uses, those same Bible translations, dictionaries, and concordances, are corrupt? 

Psalm 119 is an acrostic psalm divided into 22 sections of 8 verses. Each verse begins with the same letter. If Tim is correct when he says Aleph is always translated as A then why doesn't every first word in the first section of Psalm 119 begin with the letter A?

https://odbu.org/topic/ot245-02-in-psalm-119-acrostic/

Perhaps Tim will make his own nonsensical translation of Psalm 119 when he finally publishes his corrected Levite Bible. 

Again, I ask how does he know how to correctly pronounce Hebrew words without reference to the vowel points? What is his method? He does not give it.  

This is the end of the first part of examining Tim's etymology of Ophir. In the next article I will examine Tim's claim Ophir means "mouth of light."

The God Culture: 100 Lies About the Philippines: Lie #43: A Spanish Document Says The Philippines is Ophir

Welcome back to 100 lies The God Culture teaches about the Philippines. Today's lie concerns Tim's claim that an old Spanish document maps the way to Ophir and ends in the Philippines. As we shall see that is simply not true in the slightest. 

Tim makes this claim in his videos.

NEW!!! Lost Isles of Gold LIVE Series. Part 3: Where Is Tarshish? Philippines? Not Spain or Britain!

22:35 In, uh, about 1519 or so even before Magellan landed in the Philippines the Spanish created a map in a Spanish government Document number 98 and it actually maps it all the way through. We have this in our source book. You can read it. We actually give it to you in Spanish and we show you how to read it in Spanish. So, you can read the original and you can see that they're leading you specifically to the Philippines as Ophir and Tarshish on a map. Wow! GMA mapped it in that interview that we showed in one of the last segments, uh, and this is their mapping so we're using that and you can see that Ophir and Tarshish, the end of this whole route is the Philippines. This isn't a mystery this has always been the case

Tim claims GMA mapped out this route as if they are affirming his fake history but that is not the case. 

Lalaking nakahukay ng ginto noon at naging milyonaryo, kumusta na ngayon? | Kapuso Mo, Jessica Soho

They are simply illustrating a speech given by Representative Dan Fernandez. But with the GMA seal Tim can strut and pretend that a news organization has legitimized his lies about the Philippines. 

He also makes the same claim about Document 98 in his book The Search for King Solomon's Treasure.

The Search for King Solomon's Treasure, pg 161

In fact, the Spanish even record directions from Spain East to Ophir or Lequios which it specifically equates affirming Magellan’s notes, and Tarshish. In Coleccion General De Documentos..., Doc. 98, detailed directions are provided over many pages from Spain, passing Africa, then India and Sri Lanka, to Burma, to Sumatra, to Moluccas, to China, then finally to Tarsis and then, Lequios and Ofir or Ophir, Philippines. [152, see Sourcebook for detail.]

Tim's comments on Document 98 in his Sourcebook are interesting. 

The Search for King Solomon's Sourcebook, pg  151

NOTE: This whole chapter progresses from Spain to Lequios and Ofir. Not a perfect translation but one can easily understand this is identifying the Philippines. It is not Japan which 149 clarifies. Taiwan is not a group of isles. This is the Philippines especially since Pigafetta and others found the Lequios in Luzon Philippines. 

Tim's claim that this document gives directions to the Philippines rests on his misidentification of the Lequios Islands with the Philippines. I have explored that issue in depth elsewhere. You can read about it here. 

His reference to 149 is to his source which is number 149. This source is another document from volume 5 of the Coleccion General De Documentos discussing the importance of document 98. Here is what it says in full.  

The Search For King Solomon's Treasure Sourcebook, pg. 150

Of undeniable importance is document number 98, entitled “Geographical description from the Cape of Good Hope to China,” and whose original heading reads as follows: “These are the places and ports and main islands that there are from the Cape of Good Hope to the Leyquios, which is what has so far been discovered the most and of which there is the most news in Portugal.” It is unsigned and undated, but there is no doubt, from what can be deduced from some sentences in the text, that this notable work was due to someone who, knowing what the Portuguese had until then written and reported verbally about their expeditions in that part of the world that belonged to them, managed to condense this sum of geographical knowledge into a few sheets. The collector has assigned it the date “1520-1528,” we believe based on the place that this precious manuscript occupies in the file of which it is a part; but in our opinion it must have been written before 1522. It describes with some detail the Asian coast from the part washed by the waters of the Red Sea to the beginning of the Chinese coast; it gives information on all the kingdoms that were more or less known at that time, as well as the islands of Ceylon, both Java, Moluccas, Celebes, Banda and others, up to Gilolo; from here it turns to the mainland of Asia, not without alluding to Borneo, and concludes with a vague allusion to Japan, or Lequios, as it was called then. There is not the slightest concrete allusion to the Philippine Archipelago, although the author mentions groups of islands situated at a short distance from it. This persuades us that the work we are dealing with was written before the year 1522, when the ship Victoria arrived in Spain after having sailed around the world. In that same year, the Portuguese captured the ship Trinidad in the Moluccas, which, like the Victoria, was part of Magellan's fleet. The Portuguese seized the logbooks and all the documents carried by the crew of the Trinidad, and it is reasonable to assume that the following year, 1523, such precious manuscripts were already in Portugal. For these reasons, we repeat, we believe that this remarkable Description must have been written before 1522.

http://bdh-rd.bne.es/viewer.vm?id=0000175741&page=1622

The compilers of these documents says that document 98 could not have been written before 1522 because there is no mention of the Philippines and the document is about Portuguese discoveries. Now, it is a fact of history that Portugal did not discover the Philippines. Why would they mention those islands? They wouldn't! 

Tim comments on this denial thusly:

NOTE: In other words, don't pay attention to conclusions of authors or historians who draw from antiquated information as this identifies. That is so 1520 when we are now beyond 1521’s find by Magellan. Why is this document from the Spanish so adamant about this being the thinking before 1522? Because Magellan found the Lequios again documented by Pigafetta and others following as Luzon Island Philippines is fully confirmed not Japan nor Taiwan who are proven false. To think otherwise, is simply a false paradigm of willing ignorance. Of largest note, that out thinking ignored the Philippines which you can find in British writings especially even today. We find it in Nowell, Suarez and other authors whom we even quote as well which is why we do as this Spanish document suggests, we ignore their antiquated paradigm of bias in conclusions which they clearly have and this document condemned in this writing as well in characterizing it as stuck in an old paradigm. The Lequios are not a scholarly mystery as you will find many who cite one quote after another and maps but all before Magellan and then actually use those in drawing a conclusion ignoring Magellan, Pigafetta and many others and ignoring the Philippines. Why is it that the Philippines must be ignored? Well, in reading this entire book, that reason is obvious. It is the only option as Ophir as there is no other and we are not supposed to know this. 

Tim simply brushes it off saying it's a false paradigm and hinting that the true location of Ophir as being the Philippines is being covered up. That is nonsense. 

Document 98 is not a list of Spanish discoveries. Once again, the heading of this document is:

http://bdh-rd.bne.es/viewer.vm?id=0000175741&page=921

These are the places and ports and the main islands that exist from the Cape of Good Hope to the Leyquios, which is what has been discovered the most so far and what is most known in Portugal.

Portugal did not discover the Philippines. The Spanish were the first Europeans to set eyes on the archipelago. It would not make sense for the Philippines to be included in a list of Portuguese discoveries until after 1522 which is when documents from the captured Trinidad would have made their way back to Portugal.  Tim simply ignores documented history for his own fabricated lies. 

No one in the history of the world has ever claimed the Lequios Islands were the Philippines until Tim came along. There is no map that shows this identification. The Lequios Islands are in between Taiwan and Japan and today are known as the Ryukyu Islands. A true mapping of the directions in Document 98 looks like this:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4b/Mercator_1569_world_map_composite.jpg

This is a 1569 Mercator Map. The Lequios Islands are clearly separate from the Philippines. The claim that Document 98 leads to the Philippines is false. It is simply one more lie taught about the Philippines by Timothy Jay Schwab who is The God Culture. 

The God Culture: Jesus Spent His Lost Years In The Philippines

Timothy Jay Schwab who is The God Culture thinks he is Indiana Jones but he is actually Alice in Wonderland. He has fallen down a deep hole and things keep getting curiouser and curiouser.  This time Tim has fallen down the deep hole of a new book called Revelation of the Magi. This book has led Tim to claim Jesus spent his lost years in the Philippines. 

Revelation of the Magi Study with Tim Schwab and Lisa George

1:11:10 Patrick is asking, "Do you think the Messiah could have been in the Philippines during his Missing Years?" 

Wow! What a question, you know?

I know. I like that question.

Nobody knows, uh, where. We have not found documentation of it. Uh, however we can tell you two things. Number one Messiah showed up as light in the Philippines at his birth. He was being born on the other side of the Earth but at the same time he was in the Philippines, number one. Number two it is highly likely that he went to the Philippines though again we cannot prove, we don't have any evidence of that. Um, but we do believe very strongly that it's the case just as we believe believe that, uh, the Apostle Thomas, uh, when he traveled to India in Legends, right? We knew when we saw that we knew, wait a minute, India no, no, no, no, no, no. India is broad. India is from Eastern Iran, Afghanistan all the way over to the Maylay Peninsula, all the way up Indochina to China and includes the Indies. So, when you say India in the ancient perspective you were not necessarily talking about, uh, what we call India on a map today. And so the reality is we just we knew that when we saw that, it's like I bet you, I bet you, Thomas came to the Philippines. Guess what? Revelation of the Magi documents that Thomas came to the Philippines. So there you go.

How stupid. Everybody knows Jesus spent his lost years in Glastonbury with his tin trading uncle Jospeh of Arimathea. And after that he spent some time in a Tibetan monastery. 

But seriously, Jesus did not show up as light in the Philippines at his birth. First of all Revelation of the Magi does not take place in the Philippines. Second of all the Star Child that appears to the Magi in Revelation of the Magi spews heresy when he says:

Revelation of the Magi 13:10 And I am everywhere, because I am a ray of light whose light has shone in this world from the majesty of my Father, who has sent me to fulfill everything that was spoken about me in the entire world and in every land by unspeakable mysteries, and to accomplish the commandment of my glorious Father, who by the prophets preached about me to the contentious house, in the same way as for you, as befits your faith, it was revealed to you about me. 

The real Jesus Christ would never say such a thing. He came to fulfill the law and the prophets of Israel and Israel alone, not the mysteries of all the religions of the world. 

Now, I will predict what will happen next. Tim says he believes very strongly it is the case that Jesus visited the Philippines during his lost years. Lisa George, before she asks the question indicates that either she or Tim or both of them or someone else is working on a book or books that will discuss that topic.

1:10:48 Tim real quick I'm so sorry to interrupt you but there's a there's a question in chat that I, I'm very intrigued by and we've actually discussed this. Um, I don't know if you, I don't know how much detail you want to go into on this or, um, uh, have the person asking the question read some books that we're planning to publish later on on this topic.

Already there are legends that Jesus travelled to India and Tim has expanded India to include the Philippines. My prediction is Timothy Jay Schwab who is The God Culture will now work towards attempting to "prove" that Jesus Christ did in fact spend time in the Philippines during his lost years. We shall see. 

The God Culture: The Mystery of the Three Kings Book Review, Part 4: The Prophecy of Messiah's Star

Timothy Jay Schwab who is The God Culture devotes a whole chapter in his new book The Mystery of the Three Kings to analyzing different prophecies from the Bible and elsewhere about Jesus being a star. That is because according to Revelation of the Magi The Star of Bethlehem was actually Jesus Christ.

pg. 130

Tim begins this chapter by noting the Philippines celebrates Christmas during the -ber months or from September to December.

In fact, one must wonder why the Philippines has the longest celebration on Earth for Messiah’s birth. That, also, is not Catholic. They begin their season in September and end with the birth of Messiah three months later. The culmination is Three Kings’ Day or Epiphany. Sure, the Catholic Church injected the occult Christmas at the wrong time of year, with the wrong Magi, and the wrong Jesus (Yahusha). They add even occult elements far from scripture in embellishment.

In our chapter titled When Was Jesus Born? (10), we will lay out the timeline Luke especially preserves for Messiah’s birth on the Bible Feast of Shavuot in June, nowhere near December. His death and resurrection were during the Feast of Unleavened Bread. The logical reason for the precedence of three months is this Feast cycle. Jesus (Yahusha) was put to death on the First Day of Unleavened Bread in Abib (March-April). He was born on Shavuot in June (See Chapter 10). That is a long celebration in which He embedded Himself in the Biblical Feasts. This practice can never pass away, and does not in any scripture. Even Paul kept these Feasts in the New Testament which he preached as well.

In the Magi Isles, the Catholic Church (the captor who conquered them), obviously took the three-month observance and moved it to the occult Christmas (formerly known as Saturnalia), the birth of His enemy and the sun god of many names (such as Mithra).

pg. 131

Right away Tim presents conjecture as fact. Where is there any evidence Filipinos had four months of celebration from March to June before the Spanish arrived? Where is there any evidence such a festival season was moved by the Catholic Church to September through December? Tim gives none. He simply states it as a fact calling it obvious. Well, it's not obvious and he needs to prove his claims. 

It is very clear in Revelation of the Magi that Jesus Christ is the Star that appeared to the Wise Men. The Star appears to them in the Cave of Treasures and speaks to them. 

13:10 And I am everywhere, because I am a ray of light whose light has shone in this world from the majesty of my Father, who has sent me to fulfill everything that was spoken about me in the entire world and in every land by unspeakable mysteries, and to accomplish the commandment of my glorious Father, who by the prophets preached about me to the contentious house, in the same way as for you, as befits your faith, it was revealed to you about me. 

This is a very problematic verse which Tim has nothing to say about. Here is the footnote from Brent Landau.

This sentence contains an intriguing theological concept: that Christ is the underlying reality of all systems of religious belief in the world. Although other early Christian writings admit the possibility of revelation through non-Christian channels (e.g., Acts 14:15-17, 17:22-31), the RevMagi demonstrates a novel “theology of world religions,” the precise form of which is found nowhere else, to my knowledge, in ancient Christian sources.

Revelation of the Magi states in no uncertain terms that Jesus Christ is the source of all religious belief in the world and not just in Israel. Such a claim is to be found nowhere else in ancient Christian sources or in the Bible. The Magi say they were sent because Jesus has worshippers in every country. 

17:5 And he commanded us in a great vision to come to this land to worship him in reverence because he has worshippers in every country. 

This ecumenism is simply not true. While there are worshippers of Jesus Christ in every country today such was not the case in the time of the Magi. The Lord is very clear that of all the families on the earth he only knew Israel. 

Amos 3:2 You only have I known of all the families of the earth

It is quite telling that Tim has nothing to say about verses 13:10 and 17:5 and claims there is nothing bothersome in the text. He should be very bothered about those verses and the doctrine they teach. Despite this terrible and heretical theology unbothered Tim says Revelation of the Magi is inspired and espouses good theology. 

Enter Revelation of the Magi from the Vatican Library, translated into English and published in 2010 by Brent Landau. Notice how this text explains Matthew and brings clarity to this entire account. That is what inspired documents do and when they do, they prove to be inspired. One does not have to add this to the Canon, but we should all be aware of the information in geography and all the many holes in Matthew get filled in. 

pg. 141

Revelation of the Magi is espousing good theology here.

pg. 149

Tim's claim that the Jesus was prophesied to be an actual star can be written off because Jesus was also prophesied to be a scepter.

Numbers 24:17 A star will come from Jacob, and a scepter will arise from Israel

Tim comments on this verse:

First, in the prophecy of Balaam, the “Him” here is firmly the Messiah to come. We are not unaware of any scholar that would debate that. Balaam can see Him prophetically in the future, not in his time and he beholds him far away from himself as a Star, literally.

pg. 132

Balaam spoke of a star and a scepter. If Jesus is literally a star then what about the scepter? What about the "will come from Jacob" part? It's pretty clear star and scepter as applied to Jesus Christ are metaphorical for greatness and authority. Matthew Henry comments:

He shall come out of Jacob, and Israel, as a Star and a Sceptre; the former denoting his glory and lustre; the latter his power and authority. Christ shall be King, not only of Jacob and Israel, but of all the world; so that all shall be either governed by his golden sceptre, or dashed in pieces by his iron rod.

https://biblehub.com/commentaries/numbers/24-17.htm

Tim appears to be unaware that this particular prophecy of Balaam is proof that the Wise Men (Magi) came from Persia.

and that the appearance of a star in Israel was a sign of the Messiah's coming is certain from Matthew 2:1 of which the Magi were informed by Zoroastres (e) their founder, who, being of Jewish extract, had got it from this prophecy of Balaam; and it is as evident that the Jews expected the appearance of an extraordinary star at the time of the Messiah's coming; for so they say more than once, in an ancient book of theirs (f), that when the"Messiah shall be revealed, a bright and shining star shall arise in the east;''which expectation must be founded on this prophecy

https://biblehub.com/commentaries/numbers/24-17.htm

Elsewhere Tim says the star appeared as an eagle and this connects it to Philippine prophecy. Discussing The Book of The Bee Tim writes:

The footnote for this point offers another confirmation that scholars knew the Star appeared two years prior to the Wise Men arriving in Jerusalem. They knew this was not actually a Star, as we see them, but far brighter, which is an excerpt in concept from Revelation of the Magi. That further details another point, which also brings attention to the Philippines, as it says the Star appeared in the form of an eagle. That is the national symbol of the Philippines to this day and that eagle appears in prophecy. It is the largest eagle on Earth. Within the Star was the form of a young child, (which is also a direct quote from Revelation of the Magi). 

pg. 61

So, now the star was an eagle or in the shape of an eagle? Where is that in Revelation of the Magi? Where is that anywhere? Tim simply grabs on to whatever he thinks will help promote his false cause. In this case a footnote mentions a legend about the star appearing as an eagle, the eagle is associated with the Philippines, the Magi came from the Philippines, therefore it all fits! Leave it to Tim to use a footnote as a source rather than finding the reference to which the footnote points. 

The fact is the Star Child who appears in Revelation of the Magi and says 

"my Father, who has sent me to fulfill everything that was spoken about me in the entire world and in every land by unspeakable mysteries"

is most certainly not Jesus Christ. The only mysteries Jesus fulfilled were those in Israel, the law and the prophets, not those "in the entire world and every land." This heretical doctrine is enough to dismiss Revelation of the Magi as bunk.

In four articles I have now dismantled Timothy Jay Schwab's arguments for Revelation of the Magi proving the Magi originated in the Philippines and his arguments that the content of the text is inspired. He is wrong on every count. Perhaps there will be more to say at a later date.

The God Culture: The Mystery of the Three Kings Book Review, Part 3: Magi is Maginoo

Having reviewed Timothy Jay Schwab's new book The Mystery of the Three Kings and shown that he has no idea what he is talking about and that the text of Revelation of the Magi contradicts him it is time to take a look at a few other things. In this article I will be reviewing Tim's claim the Greek word Magos is actually a Filipino word. 

The Mystery of the Three Kings, pg. 68

The title of the chapter is Magi is not a Word From the Greek. Already we are in bad etymological territory as magi (magos) is certainly a Greek word which is found in the Bible. Case closed, right? No, because Tim does a little dance and makes a little mess which needs cleaning up.

Here is Tim's introduction to the matter. 

One of the greatest revelations needed from Revelation of the Magi (RotM) is that the word Magi or Magos from the Wise Kings narrative does not originate in the Greek language. Greece is not East. The same could be said of Africa (which some scholars try to force), but for this to work, one must forget what direction both left and right are. Those are not theories. Yes, it is written in Greek in the New Testament (as the rest of the canonical books are), but is it Greek in origin? What if, instead, there was evidence that the word derives from its land and its language of nativity? It turns out, there is, thanks to this text. How many times have we all heard the Christmas sermon about how the Wise Men were not Kings? That is false, they were certainly Kings. 12 in all, there were more than three in number indeed, but three still has precedence, as you will find.

Then, even the highest of scholars takes us to the faulty assumption the Babylonian and/or Persian Magoi are injected by The Gospel of Matthew. They ignore that those Magoi were not even in power in the first century. They are still rebuked as satanic sorcerers in the same New Testament. One does not need to go to the Old Testament to learn how to read a word well defined in the New. They are changing the Bible when they do so, against its own interpretation itself.

They will make up fiction, supposing the sorcerers converted to the religion of Daniel. That is not ever a Bible account; it is poor assumption they cannot make. The fact that they have to manufacturer such a story to make their lie work should be evident. Certainly, Daniel was the head over the Biblical Wise Men, such as Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, but sorcerers were his satanic enemy. For a theologian to assume such a thing is nonsense. Daniel never became head of the magicians. He was head of the Sophos; the Wise Men.

p. 69

What exactly does Tim think he is accomplishing here? Everyone familiar with the matter knows magi does not originate in Greek but is a Babylonian/Persian loanword. What Tim really means is magi isn't a Persian word not magi isn't a Greek word. He can't even get his claim right.

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/g3097/kjv/tr/0-1/

the name given by the Babylonians (Chaldeans), Medes, Persians, and others, to the wise men, teachers, priests, physicians, astrologers, seers, interpreters of dreams, augers, soothsayers, sorcerers etc.

Look at that. Magos is a catch-all generic word which does not only mean sorcerer but can also mean teacher, physician, or wise men. Context matters. Matthew calls them Magos because they came from the East. They were Wise Men (Magos) from the East. If they had come from somewhere else then perhaps Matthew would not have used the word magos. In Acts magos is translated sorcerer because that's what those specific people were, men who used magic and sorcery. 

Keep in mind the word is magos and this word is also in the Septuagint in Daniel. That means the word was known BEFORE the Magi came to visit the Child Jesus. Tim is going to say this is a Filipino word originating in the word Maginoo. How can this be when the word dates at least to the time of Herodotus?

This name has come to us through the Greeks as the proper designation of the priestly class among the Persians (Herod. 1:132, 140; Xenoph., Cyrop. 8:1, 23; Plato, Alcib. 1:122; Diog. Laert. Parouem. 1, 2; Cicero, De Divin. 1:41; Apul. Apol. 1p. 32 ed. Casaubon, p. 290 ed. Elmenhorst; Porphyr. De Abst. 1. 4.; Hesych. s.v. Μάγος).

https://www.biblicalcyclopedia.com/M/magi.html 

Here is the citation from Herodotus which dates to 425 B.C.

When he has so arranged it, a Magus comes near and chants over it the song of the birth of the gods, as the Persian tradition relates it; for no sacrifice can be offered without a Magus.

 http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Hdt.%201.132&lang=original

Tim has a lot to say about Daniel to prove his thesis that the Magi in Matthew were not Persians. According to Tim Daniel was not placed in charge of the magicians but the Wise Men as the Greek word in the Septuagint is Sophos not Magos. 

Certainly, Daniel was the head over the Biblical Wise Men, such as Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, but sorcerers were his satanic enemy. For a theologian to assume such a thing is nonsense. Daniel never became head of the magicians. He was head of the Sophos; the Wise Men.

pg. 69

The reference to the Book of Daniel’s Wise Men of Daniel 5:8, for instance, is not Magos. Daniel uses the Hebrew word hakim, which is a general term for those considered to hold knowledge above the regular folk. Taking that generality and assuming it into Matthew’s Wise Men is illiterate. However, he rattles off others in a listing that separates them. The King’s Wise Men that are described in the Book of Daniel were not the Magi described in the Book of Matthew. Even the era is very disconnected, as those Magi had no part in the New Testament except as enemies. One who supposedly converted to the Biblical faith would no longer be called a sorcerer. They would have to leave that satanic paradigm.

The Wise Men described in the Book of Daniel, however, are not Magos in Greek. According to the Greek Septuagint translation, the word is sophos meaning wise; not even Magos. It would not matter, however, if it was the same word; it most certainly is not the same concept in the Book of Matthew. Indeed, among those the King considered wise could definitely be sorcerers, however, they are still not called Magos by Daniel in the Greek Septuagint. They are still called sophos, instead, in Daniel 2:12, 13, 14, 18, 24, 27, and 48. Matthew’s Gospel repeats that in 23:34, using sophos as well; referring to prophets, wise men and scribes. Daniel does not even call them Magos. To equate that term solely based on a misunderstanding of a different word is not scholarship.

pg. 70

Tim is correct here in saying the King would consider sorcerers to be Wise Men. In Daniel sophos (wise men) is a catch-all term which includes enchanters, magicians, and soothsayers. Tim is wrong when he says Daniel was never head of the magicians.

Daniel 2:48 Then the king made Daniel a great man, and gave him many great gifts, and made him ruler over the whole province of Babylon, and chief of the governors over all the wise men of Babylon.

Daniel 4:9 O Belteshazzar, master of the magicians, because I know that the spirit of the holy gods is in thee, and nosecret troubleth thee, tell me the visions of my dream that I have seen, and the interpretation thereof.

In 2:48 Daniel is made ruler over all the wise men (Sophos) of Babylon and in 4:9 he is called master of the magicians (ἐπαοιδῶν). That is because Sophos is a catch-all term for enchanters, magicians, and soothsayers.

Daniel 5:11 further affirms the above two verses and says he was put in charge not of the Wise Men (Sophos) but of the magicians (magos) among others.

There is a man in thy kingdom, in whom is the Spirit of God; and in the days of thy father watchfulness and understanding were found in him; and king Nabuchodonosor thy father made him chief of the enchanters, magicians, Chaldeans, and soothsayers.

https://biblehub.com/sep/daniel/5.htm

Here is the Greek with the relevant words highlighted.

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lxx/dan/5/1/s_855001

The first word highlighted is archon which means chief or ruler. The second is the word for enchanter as in verse 2:48. The third word is magos which is translated as magician. Daniel was made archon or ruler of the enchanters, magicians, Chaldeans, and soothsayers who constitute the Wise Men of Babylon. 

Tim is totally wrong in his assessment of Daniel. The Septuagint version of Daniel does not help Tim's case at all. Tim's comments only muddy the waters for readers who won't or can't take the time to learn exactly how Sophos and Magos is used in the Septuagint version of Daniel. 

That should be the end of the matter but of course it's not. Tim's fake Filipino etymology for this word is incredibly stupid. Let's look at it anyway. 

What if the Philippines actually had a documented social class of royals known as the MAGI in their native, ancient language? Of course, that would be impossible. No such thing could ever occur... unless... it does! Filipinos already know what we are conveying as there is an ancient royal classification known as the MAGInoo. This was the highest social order, which included what one would refer to as Kings and princes. Then, Revelation of the Magi tells us these were Kings, sons of Kings, and Wise Men. It is not difficult.

MAGInoo: Tagalog: gentleman; gentlemanly; honorable.

maginoohin: of gentlemanly habits or bearing. Root: ginoó: mister; sir; gentleman. The female counterpart to “ginoo” is “ginang.” pagka-máginoó: Tagalog: quality of being noble, worthy or stately.

This title for royalty in the Philippines preceded the Spanish arrival recorded in use in 1571 and 1690 among other references. Better yet, it was recorded in the first century by the Apostle Matthew, who used the Greek language to express a word that was not of Greek origin. He was translating Tagalog into Greek.

pgs. 71-72

Behold Tim's brilliant solution! Matthew was translating Tagalog into Greek by transforming Maginoo into the word Magos. Why would Matthew shorten the word from Maginoo to Magos? Why would the usage of Magos in Matthew be different from that in Acts? Tim never explains how Magos is Filipino for Maginoo in Matthew and is Greek for sorcerer in Acts. Instead he gives a litany of Filipino words that begin with mag or magi and this is supposed to be his proof that Matthew was translating Tagalog into Greek. There was also no royal class in the Philippines known as Magi or Magos. They were called Maginoo. The words are not the same!

However, the scoffing academic would then ignorantly claim, “that is simply not enough.” No, it is not, and that is not the end of this narrative. What about these two definitions of prayer and silence? Certainly, neither of those could be of Philippine origin. Scoff! Scoff! Snark! Oops! They both are! In Tagalog, the national Filipino language, the prefix mag is used in magdasal, meaning to pray. MAG and MAGI are the origin, the root words, with a plethora of combinations in linguistics, which identify even other traits of the ancient Magi Filipino. Wow!

mag+root: [affix/verb] to do something; to do an occupation; to go; to use something; to wear something; to do a reciprocal action; to be.

MAGdasál: Tagalog: to pray.3

MAGa-ampo: Ilonggo/Hiligaynon: to pray. managampo: Bisaya: ampo: to surrender.

pg. 72

If Tim wants to go this route of listing words with mag in them how about this verse from Jeremiah 39:3.

And all the princes of the king of Babylon came in, and sat in the middle gate, even Nergalsharezer, Samgarnebo, Sarsechim, Rabsaris, Nergalsharezer, Rabmag, with all the residue of the princes of the king of Babylon.

Rabmag means magian or Magian or soothsayer or an official of Babylon.

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/h7248/kjv/wlc/0-1/

Is this word also of Filipino origin? Or perhaps it is more proof Tim is wrong about his etymology of magos. 

Finally, Tim gives us this gem.

The Chinese were documenting the account all along. They went to the Philippines to trade with an island, likely Mindoro, which they called MA-I or MA- YI. Wait! You mean they were attempting to express MAGI? We find that likely.

“An edict of 972 indicates that Mindoro (Ma-i) was part of that trade: In the fourth year of the K’ai Pao period [972], a superintendent of maritime trade was set up in Kwangchow, and afterwards in Hangchow and Mingchow also a superintendent was appointed for all Arab, Achen, Java, Borneo, Ma-i, and Srivijaya barbarians, whose trade passed through there, they taking away gold, silver, strings of cash, lead, tin, many-colored silk, and porcelain...” –William Henry Scott

“The first Philippine tribute mission to China appears to have come from Butuan on 17 March 1001. Butuan (P’u-tuan) is described in the Sung Shih (Sung History) as a small country in the sea to the east of Champa, farther than Ma-i...” –William Henry Scott5

Mindoro is on the way to Butuan, and we vet that further in The Search for King Solomon’s Treasure: The Lost Isles of Gold & The Garden of Eden. However, one of the most amazing facts about Mindoro or Ma-Yi, is the name of its indigenous tribes– the MAGI! Mindoro is historically famous for its skill in working with gold in fact.

Mang yan:

Mangyan is the generic name for the eight indigenous groups found in Mindoro each with its own tribal name, language, and customs. The Mangyans were once the only inhabitants of Mindoro 

pgs. 78-79

"We find that likely?" That is not a proof! That is conjecture. Ma-I is not Magi or Maginoo. Also the tribes of Mindoro are not called Magi but Mangyan as Tim even admits just after calling them Magi! Why is he lying about the Mangyan being Magi when he has already said Magi has its origins in Maginoo? He can't even keep his theories straight. 

This whole chapter is completely worthless. Not one time does Tim attempt to prove Matthew was "translating Tagalog into Greek" or that the Chinese meant Magi by Ma-I. He simply sates it as a fact and moves on to listing Filipino words with mag or magi claiming that is proof enough. He even has the gall to say the tribes of Mindoro are called Magi and then show they are actually called Mangyan! He is blatantly lying to the reader's face and is making it all up as he goes. He is "Baffling with BS." Tim is in fact storytelling. 

Are we "storytelling" or are we presenting the facts?

pg. 161

There is no reason to debate Tim on every word he lists because he has said Magi means Maginoo yet he has not proved that Matthew was "translating Tagalog into Greek." The Greek word magos pre-dates the Gospel of Matthew in Herodotus by almost 500 years. He does not even try to prove his case in any meaningful way except to say, "Look! This word looks and sounds like that word therefore it is that word or it is related to that word." That is not how linguistics works!