The God Culture: A.I. Says Columbus Did Not Rebuke Marco Polo

One of the stupidest claims of Timothy Jay Schwab who is The God Culture is Christopher Columbus rebuked Marco Polo and the Great Khan for covering up the location of Ophir. 

In chapter 4, page 95, of Garden of Eden Revealed Tim writes the following:

Garden of Eden Revealed, pg 95

Columbus wrote that Cipangu of Marco Polo was Ophir and that Marco Polo and the Great Khan "failed" to represent Cipangu as Ophir. They were always the same land! "Encouraged by the interest with which the sovereigns listened to his account of his recent voyage along the coast of Cuba, bordering, as he supposed, on the rich territories of the Grand Khan, and of his discovery of the mines of Hayna, which he failed not to represent as the Ophir of the of the ancients, Columbus now proposed a further enterprise, by which he promised to make yet more extensive discoveries and to annex a vast and unappropriated portion of the continent of Asia to their dominions."

This claim is objectively false and I have written about it here. Yet Tim insists his interpretation of this paragraph is correct. He has included this claim on his new website. 

https://thegodculture.org/papers-amp-peer-reviews/

Again, this is objectively false. The text Tim is citing speaks for itself. 

https://archive.org/details/lifevoyagesofchr00ir/page/210/mode/2up

The reception of Columbus by the sovereigns was different from what he had anticipated, for he was treated with distinguished favor; nor was any mention made either of the complaints of Margarite and Boyle, or the judicial inquiries conducted by Aguado. However these may have had a transient effect upon the minds of the sovereigns, they were too conscious of his great deserts, and of the extraordinary difficulties of his situation, not to tolerate what they may have considered errors on his part.

Encouraged by the interest with which the sovereigns listened to his account of his recent voyage along the coast of Cuba, bordering, as he supposed, on the rich territories of the Grand Khan, and of his discovery of the mines of Hayna, which he failed not to represent as the Ophir of the ancients, Columbus now proposed a further enterprise, by which he promised to make yet more extensive discoveries, and to annex a vast and unappropriated portion of the continent of Asia to their dominions

Maybe ChatGPT's analysis of this text will change Tim's mind. Probably not because unsurprisingly it agreed with me and not him. It's pathetic that this kind of analysis has to be done when the text is very clear and contains no rebuke of Marco Polo and the Great Khan. It's not even the words of Columbus but the writing of Washington Irving! And no he was not recording the words of Columbus. He was describing Columbus' actions.

Washington Irving records that Columbus rebuked Marco Polo for misidentifying Zipangu (Japan), asserting instead that Zipangu was actually Ophir, and it was never in Japan.

https://thegodculture.org/ophir-the-lost-land-of-gold---rediscovered-in-the-philippines/

Lest Tim say this is inconsequential hair splitting over small details let me be clear that it is not. Tim's misinterpretation of the text indicates either he cannot read or he is lying on purpose. Since Tim now claims any suggestion he has not read the texts he cites is a lie that leaves only one conclusion. This same methodology carries over into his other research and claims which is what makes it unreliable and why ChatGPT has rejected Tim's research every time I have asked it for an analysis. There are numerous articles on this blog showing those rejections which are in no way manipulated as Tim alleges. 

That Tim continues to lie about Columbus rebuking Marco Polo and the Grand Khan is more evidence there is no God Culture Research Team. It is highly improbable that a team of researchers would consistently misinterpret this paragraph.

Here is a screenshot of the chat. I am under no delusion Tim will accept this chat as authentic or change his mind. He will no doubt declare it is manipulated and accuse me of cyber libel. What he will never do is deal with the facts. 

Edit: Tim has posted a rebuttal of this article here.  He simply doesn't get it. He continues to claim this paragraph says Columbus rebuked Marco Polo and The Great Khan. That is objectively false and his argument doesn't deal with the actual words of the text. Instead Tim moves the goalposts and appeals to "the broader narrative of Columbus' beliefs."

This saga started in September 2024, with a blog post mocking our citation from Irving’s biography. He ignored the broader narrative of Columbus' beliefs, fixated only on whether the word "rebuke" was used directly, also, negligently forgetting that it is Marco Polo who is the author of the Great Khan's Zipangu account being identified. Thus to rebuke the account, (for those who can think), that means Polo.  

In February 2025, he doubled down. Despite being shown the quote in its full context, he reiterated the same debunked argument, now accusing us of deliberately twisting sources—while continuing to cherry-pick. This is typical behavior hundreds of times from a hack with Colonial bias.  

Finally, on April 1, 2025, he revisited the claim a third time. The irony of choosing April Fool’s Day is not lost on us. 

He calls our reading "objectively false," yet ignores: 

• The actual logic in Columbus aligning Zipangu and Ophir 

• The historical framework of Columbus interpreting Marco Polo's Cipangu as a land of gold, ripe with biblical associations 

• Ironically, it was Marco Polo himself who authored the account of the Grand Khan and Zipangu, which makes him directly included in any rebuke. If that connection needs to be spelled out, one may question whether the blogger is approaching this topic with even the most basic level of critical reasoning. 

• The fact that Irving does depict Columbus as correcting prior misconceptions—not quoting Marco Polo, but positioning his own discovery in contrast 

This blogger cannot or will not make the distinction between Columbus' interpretation of Polo's Zipangu and a literal confrontation between Columbus and Polo (which of course never happened as they lived centuries apart). The idea of a "rebuke" is rhetorical, not literal, and anyone with even modest literary comprehension can understand that.

Tim's exact claim is 

"Columbus wrote that Cipangu of Marco Polo was Ophir and that Marco Polo and the Great Khan "failed" to represent Cipangu as Ophir."

Which is objectively false. He wrote no such thing. The question is about what the text says, not the broader narrative of Columbus' beliefs, and the words of the text say no such thing. Tim is wrong. The paragraph is about Columbus relating his discoveries to the Queen and King of Spain. It is Columbus who "failed not" to represent Hayna as Ophir. That has nothing to do with Marco Polo or the Khan.