I have run Timothy Jay Schwab's books through ChatGPT several times with the same results. But what about my articles? Are they up to snuff? To find out I copy/pasted my two articles about Tim's etymology of the word Ophir into ChatGPT and asked for an analysis. You can read part 1 and part 2 at the links provided.
This critique comes from chapter 2 of The Search For King Solomon's Treasure where Tim writes in the most unambiguous words:
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 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.
Tim has declared the Hebrew letter Aleph always means the English letter "A." Now Tim says that is a fabrication.
The blog’s AI response claims that the authors misuse Hebrew, particularly in transliteration (e.g., asserting that Aleph must be rendered as “A”). This is a fabrication. The authors provide thorough notes on transliteration conventions and clearly explain phonetics in Appendix sections, with sources for most from linguists.
Tim's own words are a fabrication? Interesting. Did Tim write a second edition of The Search For King Solomon's Treasure? My edition has no appendices whatsoever especially not "on transliteration conventions" with sources or notes from linguists. Even if they did that would not change the fact that he is wrong about Aleph always being "A." No linguist would ever agree with that.
The prompts are "analyze these articles. this is part 1", "analyze part 2", and "ok now what if I am wrong and Tim is right?" I only include the answer to the last prompt lest this article be unwieldy because it would have to contain the whole of both articles even if it were a screenshot. A link to the full conversation is here.
If Tim is right about Aleph always being "A" that means several things none of which are likely. It will be very interesting to see what real scholars have to say about Tim's book.
live peer review sessions with professors are now underway.
I am sure he will find a way to garner praise for the unpraiseworthy.
ChatGPT said:
That's a great question to ask—it shows you're intellectually honest and willing to test your assumptions. So let’s walk through what it would take for Tim Schwab’s etymology of Ophir being “mouth of light” or “land of light” to be valid. If he's right, certain things must follow logically and linguistically.
1. Hebrew Linguistics Must Work Differently Than Scholars Understand
For Tim to be right:
The Hebrew letter Aleph (א) must always be pronounced as “A.”
But in historical and modern Hebrew, Aleph is a glottal stop, and its pronunciation depends on vowel points, which Tim rejects.
So Tim’s claim requires the entire scholarly consensus on ancient Hebrew phonology to be wrong and Hebrew to be vowel-independent, despite centuries of linguistic study.
👉 If Tim is right, that overturns the foundation of Hebrew phonetics and grammar.
2. The Word Ophir (אוֹפִיר) Must Be a Compound
Tim treats Ophir as though it were made of smaller, separable parts (AU + PY + R or AUR + PY), implying it's not a proper name but a compound phrase. For this to be true:
Proper names in the Bible would need to be regularly analyzable as descriptive phrases.
But biblical Hebrew names are not consistently compound phrases. Many are of uncertain etymology or derived from other names.
👉 If Tim is right, then Hebrew naming conventions have been misunderstood entirely, and scholars must have missed the obvious morphological structure in names like Ophir.
3. "AUPYR" Must Mean the Same as "AURPY"
This is the biggest issue.
He spells Ophir as AUPYR but interprets it as AURPY.
For him to be right, Hebrew must:
Be flexible enough to swap the order of morphemes without changing meaning.
Allow you to insert or drop letters without explanation (U → UR, PYR → PY).
👉 If Tim is right, then we must accept that Hebrew is phonetically and grammatically loose enough to allow for arbitrary rearrangements.
4. Latin Words Must Derive From Hebrew
Tim says AU for gold in the periodic table ultimately comes from AUPYR, not from Latin aurum. If he’s right:
Latin etymology is wrong.
The Indo-European language family tree is wrong.
Ancient linguistic transmission from Semitic to Latin must have occurred in ways no scholar has ever documented.
👉 That would mean entire fields of comparative linguistics and historical philology are flawed.
5. All Known Scholarly Resources Must Be Wrong
Tim rejects:
Strong’s Concordance
The Masoretic vowel system
Standard definitions of Hebrew roots and proper names
Comparative linguistics
He relies instead on:
Unverified claims
Non-scholarly sources (e.g., Abarim Publications)
Subjective interpretations of letter shapes and meanings
👉 If he’s right, it means scholars for over 2,000 years—Jewish and Christian alike—have missed something obvious.
6. Tim Must Be Getting Direct Revelation or Intuition Others Don’t Have
Because he proudly says he is not a linguist, yet claims greater insight than all linguists, then:
Either he’s stumbled on something by sheer chance that every scholar missed.
Or he is receiving divine insight.
👉 If Tim is right, then this is not just linguistics—it’s prophecy or a special calling. That must be weighed theologically, not academically.
So… What If Tim Is Right?
Then:
Hebrew works completely differently than any known linguistic system.
Latin came from Hebrew.
Proper names are actually phrases with deep symbolic meaning.
Tim's theological geography (Philippines = Eden/Ophir) becomes plausible.
Entire academic disciplines collapse.
Tim is a linguistic visionary—or divinely inspired.
Final Thought:
If you're wrong and Tim is right, the burden is extraordinary. He would need to prove all of the above, not just assert it. Until that happens, the scholarly consensus stands.
But it’s good you're asking. Testing ideas like this keeps your thinking sharp.
Would you want a point-by-point summary to contrast your critique with what would need to be true for Tim’s position to hold?
No comments:
Post a Comment