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."