Timothy Jay Schwab who is The God Culture has made it very clear that to even suggest he did not read the books he cites is to not represent the truth.
Please note that defamatory and harassing attack blogs employing propaganda do not represent the extensive collection of credible data that underpins The God Culture's research. All our published books include comprehensive bibliographies for verification. One claiming we do not even read these sources, and did not even try to prove, when we quote and explain them in a massive number of pages, is clearly not one representing the truth. The fact they have to explain why one should not read the position, already tells one much about their intentions, as they have no adherence to the truth. That is the behavior of weak-minded individuals.
https://thegodculturephilippines.blogspot.com/2025/03/the-god-culture-thegodculturephilippine.html
As I noted that means Tim has read the sources he cites and is familiar with their contents. Therefore if Tim claims one thing about a source he cites and it actually says something completely different that means he is lying. And we are not talking about matters of interpretation but matters of fact. Because Tim is very adamant he is not lying I will not be referring to him as a liar. Instead I am going to run two paragraphs through ChatGPT and see how that A.I. chatbot analyses them.
The first paragraph is from Tim's book The Search For King Solomon's Treasure where he claims when Fernando Pinto was shipwrecked in the Lequios Islands he was at coordinates 9N20.
The second paragraph is from Pinto's journal where he writes he was shipwrecked in the Lequios Islands at "nine and twenty degrees."
 |
| Solomon's Treasure, pg. 163 |
Contemporary to Magellan, Ferdinand Pinto classified the Lequios and Chinese as the wealthiest in the Orient trading in gold and silver especially. He defines the Lequios Islands as an archipelago, not Taiwan, as well as a separate country. He also differentiates the Lequios as not Japan, China, Indonesia nor Malaysia but in between those. Pinto also travelled to the Lequios Islands from Malaysia headed North which he placed in the modern Philippines specifically on 9N20.
In this manner we departed from Pungor the capital City of the Island of Lequios, of which I will here make a brief relation, to the end that if it shall one day please God to inspire the Portugal Nation, principally for the exaltation and increase of the Catholick faith, and next for the great benefit that may redound thereof, to undertake the Conquest of this Island, they may know where first to begin, as also the commodities of it, and the easiness of this Conquest. We must understand then that this Island of Lequios, scituated in nine and twenty degrees, is two hundred leagues in circuit, threescore in length, and thirty in bredth.
In this case assessing Tim's familiarity with Pinto's journal is a little tricky. According to the The Search For King Solomon's Treasure Sourcebook he is not citing from Pinto but from J.G. Cheock. That would mean Tim is familiar with and has read J.G. Cheock and he is not familiar with nor has he read the journal of Fernando Pinto.
Perhaps one could argue Tim is not lying because he cites 9N20 from Cheock and not from Pinto who writes 29. But then again Tim claims that the secondary sources he cites always agree with the primary sources they cite.
17:18 However a Pharisee looks at that and scoffs. "Heh! Well you could have used a better source. Why is your font so small on that screen? That one quote doesn't say that!" Though it always does say exactly what we represent by the way because it always vets, every single challenge has.
You quoted a secondary source citing the original" oh which happens to be true and in representation actually match the original? Duh! I mean could you be more ridiculous?
In this case Cheock, the secondary source, does not agree with Pinto, the primary source, which means Tim is wrong about having vetted this citation. Let's simply take Tim's word about having read and being familiar with all his sources and assume that he has not read Pinto because he did not cite Pinto but he has read Cheock because he does cite Cheock. In that case Tim is not a liar per se but a lazy researcher for sure. What about his claim that all his secondary sources have been vetted and match the originals? Well, that is obviously not true. Does not telling the truth make Tim a liar?
You can read my analysis of the paragraphs posted above here. But what does ChatGPT have to say about these two paragraphs? Here are the non-biased, non-slanted, neutral prompts: "analyze this paragraph" and "compare that paragraph to this one from Pinto's journal."
ChatGPT said:
This paragraph attempts to present Ferdinand Pinto’s geographical and ethnographic classification of the “Lequios” in relation to other Asian peoples and regions. Here's a detailed analysis:
Clarity and Coherence
The paragraph presents several ideas but lacks smooth transitions and clear structure. It jumps between topics—wealth, geography, identity—without clearly tying them together.
The sentence structure is somewhat choppy and at times ambiguous, particularly in phrases like “not Taiwan, as well as a separate country,” which is confusing in its coordination.
Content and Claims
“Contemporary to Magellan, Ferdinand Pinto…”
Establishes the timeframe, correctly situating Pinto in the 16th century.
However, saying he was contemporary to Magellan is a bit misleading. Pinto was born in 1509 and Magellan died in 1521; Pinto’s significant travels occurred after Magellan’s death.
“classified the Lequios and Chinese as the wealthiest in the Orient trading in gold and silver especially.”
This is an important observation about economic perceptions, likely drawn from Pinto’s Peregrinação.
However, it could benefit from a clearer grammatical construction and citation if used in academic writing.
“He defines the Lequios Islands as an archipelago, not Taiwan, as well as a separate country.”
This sentence is confusing:
Does “not Taiwan” mean he excludes Taiwan from the Lequios Islands?
“as well as a separate country” is grammatically disjointed—it’s unclear whether the “separate country” refers to the Lequios Islands or another subject.
“He also differentiates the Lequios as not Japan, China, Indonesia nor Malaysia but in between those.”
This tries to emphasize that the Lequios are neither of the major known Asian nations of the time but somewhere geographically “in between.”
The phrase “not Japan, China, Indonesia nor Malaysia” is awkward—“neither...nor” or “not...or” constructions would be cleaner.
“Pinto also travelled to the Lequios Islands from Malaysia headed North which he placed in the modern Philippines specifically on 9N20.”
This presents a significant geographical claim: that Pinto located the Lequios in the area of 9°20′N, which would be in the central Philippines, near Bohol or Cebu.
However, this is a contentious interpretation, as “Lequios” has often been associated with the Ryukyu Islands (Okinawa).
The sentence could be improved by making it clearer that this is an interpretation of Pinto’s account, not necessarily an uncontested fact.
Historical and Interpretive Issues
The identity and location of the “Lequios” have long been debated. Some scholars associate them with the Ryukyu Islands (modern-day Okinawa), not the Philippines.
Claiming that Pinto placed them in the modern Philippines, especially at a specific latitude, is a strong assertion that requires evidence—likely a modern reinterpretation of his texts rather than a direct quote.
Suggested Revision for Clarity
Ferdinand Pinto, a 16th-century Portuguese explorer, described the Lequios and the Chinese as among the wealthiest peoples in the Orient, primarily engaged in the trade of gold and silver. He identified the Lequios Islands as an archipelago distinct from Taiwan, considering it a separate country. Pinto differentiated the Lequios from the Chinese, Japanese, Indonesians, and Malays, suggesting they inhabited a region between these known lands. He reportedly traveled northward from Malaysia to reach the Lequios Islands, which he located around 9°20′N—an area corresponding to the central Philippines in modern geography.
Would you like help tracing where this 9°20′N claim appears in Pinto’s writings or how scholars have interpreted the term “Lequios”?
You said:
compare that paragraph to this one from Pinto's journal: In this manner we departed from Pungor the capital City of the Island of Lequios, of which I will here make a brief relation, to the end that if it shall one day please God to inspire the Portugal Nation, principally for the exaltation and increase of the Catholick faith, and next for the great benefit that may redound thereof, to undertake the Conquest of this Island, they may know where first to begin, as also the commodities of it, and the easiness of this Conquest. We must understand then that this Island of Lequios, scituated in nine and twenty degrees, is two hundred leagues in circuit, threescore in length, and thirty in bredth.
ChatGPT said:
Great comparison. The paragraph from Pinto’s journal and the modern one you provided differ significantly in terms of content, interpretation, and tone. Here's a breakdown of how they compare:
Geographical Placement
Pinto’s Journal:
Explicitly places the Island of Lequios at 29 degrees latitude (presumably north), not 9°20′N.
That would situate it in the Ryukyu Islands, particularly near Okinawa, which lies around 26–27°N. This supports the common scholarly view that Lequios refers to Liuqiu / Ryukyu (Okinawa).
Modern Paragraph:
Claims Pinto placed Lequios at 9N20, which would be in the central Philippines, a completely different region.
This appears to be a reinterpretation or misreading of Pinto’s account.
Nature of Lequios
Pinto’s Journal:
Refers to Lequios as a single island, though large (“two hundred leagues in circuit”).
Pinto describes its strategic and economic potential, even considering it for Portuguese conquest and evangelization.
His tone is missionary and imperial, typical of Portuguese exploration literature of the 16th century.
Modern Paragraph:
Describes Lequios as an archipelago and a separate country—not just an island.
Attempts to distance it from Japan, China, Malaysia, and Indonesia, claiming it's “in between,” which is geographically ambiguous and inconsistent with Pinto’s 29° placement.
The modern paragraph also blurs historical geography, attempting to re-anchor Lequios into a new, modern context (i.e., the Philippines).
Interpretive Gap
Pinto’s Writings:
Are specific about measurements and strategic interest in the island at 29° latitude.
Uses the term Lequios in a way that matches other Portuguese and Spanish accounts referring to Liuqiu / Ryukyu.
Modern Paragraph:
Introduces a revisionist reading, moving Lequios far south to the Philippines.
That reinterpretation doesn’t match Pinto’s own navigational coordinates or common contemporary usage of the term.
May reflect an agenda or modern effort to link historical narratives to the Philippines for nationalistic or ideological reasons.
Conclusion
Pinto’s original journal clearly places the Island of Lequios at 29°N, aligning with the Ryukyu Islands (Okinawa), not the Philippines. His descriptions emphasize military strategy, size, and religious conquest. The modern paragraph misrepresents Pinto’s coordinates (29° → 9°20′N), changes a single island into an archipelago, and places it in the wrong region entirely. The reinterpretation appears forced and is inconsistent with the primary source.
Would you like help tracing how the name Lequios evolved in historical geography or how it has been used in other early European texts?
No comments:
Post a Comment