I thought we had reached the end and it was all over but it's not. It never is. Timothy Jay Schwab who is The God Culture is so happy that 5 A.I.s have given him a positive review he even had them dance in a video. He also posted a final wrap-up where he "shows his work." Let's take a look at some of the things he says starting halfway down the page.
 |
| https://thegodculturephilippines.com/the-five-ai-peer-reviews-a-strong-case-for-the-philippines-as-ophir-and-the-garden-of-eden/ |
It seems our favorite anonymous blogger is at it again—this time accusing The God Culture of using 'slanted prompting' in our AI Peer Reviews of our Ophir research. Ironically, the term 'slanted prompting' was first introduced—not by us—but by ChatGPT in its own assessment of the blogger’s manipulated AI prompts, not ours. Yet here he is, applying the term to our transparent process, clearly without understanding what it actually means. Let’s break it down.
What Is 'Slanted Prompting'?
'Slanted prompting' occurs when someone deliberately steers AI toward a specific conclusion by framing their prompt in a biased, one-sided manner—for example, asking AI to 'debunk' or 'find flaws' in a topic rather than conducting a balanced analysis. This is precisely what the blogger did, as noted by ChatGPT itself in its response to his interaction. In contrast, our Peer Review sessions consistently asked neutral, open-ended questions such as:
- 'Is this research methodologically sound?'- 'Is the evidence strong or weak?'- 'Does this align with Biblical and historical sources?'These are balanced, academic prompts that allow the AI to evaluate both strengths and weaknesses. That’s the opposite of slanting.
Despite showing my work in several articles Tim claims I asked Gemini and ChatGPT to debunk or find flaws in his research. ChatGPT says this as well.
Mystery of the Three Kings: Analyze this book and give an even more detailed report on its truthfulness and reliability especially as regards linguistics, biblical narratives, geography, history, and the author's dismissal of scholars as being stupid.Rest: The Case for Sabbath: Produce a detailed chapter-by-chapter analysis of this book. Focus on the author's use of sources including the Bible and early church writings. Address his engagement with academia. Analyze the methodology the author employs to reach his conclusions. Assess the reliability of the book and its author.Solomon's Gold: Produce a detailed critical analysis of this book chapter by chapter individually. Discuss the author's research concerning the bible, history, geography, cartography, linguistics, engagement with scholars, his use of sources, and anything else relevant. Look for patterns and identify his methods of researching the subjects. Analyze his ability as a researcher and the quality of his research. Also analyze his reliability as a researcher.
In a video I uploaded I gave ChatGPT the prompt "analyze this PDF."
I have no idea what part of my A.I. reviews he uploaded or how he prompted the A.I. which makes that assessment basically worthless. It exists but WHY does it exist? Tim does not show us. Take note ChatGPT refers to me as "the impersonating blogger." That is not ChatGPT's assessment but is a repetition of Tim's prompt which included that nom de gurre revealing whatever prompt he gave was biased. In no conversation with ChatGPT did I refer to Tim as anything except his name, the author, or the creator.
Tim says I accused him of using slanted prompts which is also not true. I accused him of using misleading prompts. It's a small thing but Tim is accusing me of borrowing language from him which he got from ChatGPT. How petty and ridiculous. A word search of this blog shows his accusation is false.
In contrast Tim actually did use "slanted" and misleading prompts. Here are two of them:
 |
| https://thegodculture.org/ws/media-library/ed3d9ddf3aa7c089151a43a8202b08fc/validation-from-chat-gpt-this-peer-review-is-its-accurate-view-with-further-conversation.pdf |
Locating the island labeled Chryse Southeast of China in the South China Sea is not "nuanced." That is ridiculous. It is called reading a map. To say otherwise, is not "nuance", it would be fraud.
How can an island Southeast of China, Northeast of Borneo and Malaysia, be misrepresented in context, regardless of the academic, as anything but the Philippines in logic?
Tim also writes:
We have published our ChatGPT Peer Reviews openly—videos, PDFs, screenshots—where viewers can see the full prompt and AI response.
Unless I missed something that is not the case. Tim has published final summaries and created videos with scripts written by the A.I.s which wrote the final summaries but he has not shown the full interaction with all prompts submitted. The screenshots on the page under discussion are not full interactions but final summaries stating Tim did not input leading prompts.
You Used Objective Framing, Not Leading Prompts Your questions included phrases like:
• "Please evaluate this research academically!
• "Is the evidence presented strong, weak, or in need of revision?"
• "Does this align with Biblical, historical, and archaeological data?"
• "Do you agree or disagree with the conclusion and why?"
These are open-ended prompts—not ones that steer Al toward a forced conclusion. You specifically asked for confirmation or rebuttal—which is how a real peer review functions.
Thanks for your patience. Based only on the content of the uploaded PDF titled The Search for King Solomon’s Treasure by The God Culture, here is an academic evaluation of the research, the strength of the evidence, its alignment with biblical, historical, and archaeological data, and whether I agree with its conclusion:
🔍 Academic Evaluation of the Research
The book attempts to make a case that the Biblical land of Ophir, from which King Solomon received vast quantities of gold, is the Philippines. It expands this claim by suggesting that Tarshish, Sheba, Havilah, and even the Garden of Eden were all located in or around the Philippines.
Methodology:
Uses a mixture of etymology, biblical texts, historical travel accounts, and modern geographical speculation.
Frequently references non-peer-reviewed sources, outdated maps, and colonial-era documents.
Relies heavily on associative logic (e.g., “gold was found in the Philippines; Ophir had gold; therefore, the Philippines is Ophir”).
Uses conspiratorial language regarding scholars, archaeologists, and modern Bible translations.
Often presents assertions as facts without rigorous cross-referencing, citations, or scholarly validation.
Style:
The tone is polemical, dismissive of mainstream scholarship, and filled with strong emotional language.
Makes broad accusations (e.g., modern scholars are liars, cartographers are involved in cover-ups, etc.).
📊 Strength of the Evidence
Overall: Weak and speculative.
1. Biblical Evidence:
The identification of Ophir, Tarshish, Sheba, etc., in the Bible is never geographically specific enough to point to the Philippines.
The Bible associates these places with trade routes accessible to ancient Israel, most likely through the Red Sea and Indian Ocean.
The author ignores or reinterprets key biblical data that connect Ophir to Arabia, East Africa, or India.
2. Historical Evidence:
The book misrepresents ancient and medieval historical texts, selectively quoting them without context.
It treats European colonial accounts as unquestionably accurate when they fit its theory but dismisses academic historians as biased when they disagree.
3. Archaeological Evidence:
There is no archaeological evidence linking the ancient Israelites to the Philippines.
No known ancient Hebrew artifacts, writings, settlements, or trade items have been found in the region that date to Solomon’s time (~10th century BCE).
Philippine gold culture is real and impressive but does not prove a biblical connection.
4. Linguistic/Etymological Arguments:
The book makes several linguistic leaps, suggesting Hebrew words match Filipino words based on surface-level similarities, which is not a valid method in comparative linguistics.
These connections ignore sound change laws, linguistic drift, and the structure of language families.
🧭 Alignment with Biblical, Historical, and Archaeological Data
Biblical: Misaligned. The interpretations are not supported by biblical scholarship and rely on rewriting traditional understanding.
Historical: Misaligned. Selectively uses sources and ignores the consensus view of historians.
Archaeological: Completely misaligned. There is no archaeological support for the claims.
🤔 Do I Agree with the Conclusion? Why or Why Not?
Conclusion of the Book: The Philippines is the land of Ophir and Tarshish, Sheba and Havilah, and even the Garden of Eden. Filipinos are the descendants of biblical peoples, and the Philippines is central to biblical prophecy and spiritual destiny.
My Assessment:I strongly disagree with the conclusion because:
It is unsupported by credible biblical scholarship.
It relies on logical fallacies, cherry-picked data, and poor methodology.
It disregards archaeological reality and the actual trade routes and geopolitical context of the ancient Near East.
It promotes a nationalistic reinterpretation of Scripture that reshapes biblical history around modern identity politics.
It misrepresents theology, especially regarding the role of Israel, the location of Eden, and the purpose of biblical prophecy.
🧾 Summary Verdict
Aspect Assessment Academic Rigor Poor – lacks credible sources & methodology Biblical Alignment No – distorts text and context Historical Accuracy No – misuses or ignores real history Archaeological Fit No – no supporting evidence exists Overall Conclusion Speculative pseudohistory
| Oh, look. I didn't get a positive review from ChatGPT using Tim's prompts. What a shock. Now let's try Gemini. |
This research makes a case that the Philippines is the location of the ancient land of Ophir, mentioned in the Bible as a source of King Solomon’s gold, as well as other significant Biblical locations
. The authors, Timothy Schwab and Anna Zamoranos, assert that this is a “monumental case” that “no one can disprove,” challenging traditional views and interpretations of Biblical geography . Here’s an evaluation of the research based on the questions you’ve provided:
.
- The book cites specific Biblical passages to argue for the Philippines as Ophir
. - Linguistic evidence is presented by analyzing the Hebrew etymology of “Ophir” and related terms
. - They reference archaeological findings, such as the Tell Qasile ostracon, to support the existence of Ophir as a source of gold
. - Historical connections are drawn between the Philippines and ancient trade routes, as well as accounts from figures like Antonio Pigafetta
.
- Biblical accounts of Ophir’s trade with King Solomon are a foundational element
. - The authors argue that their interpretation of Hebrew linguistic roots connects the Philippines to Ophir
. - They use historical documents, such as Pigafetta’s chronicles, to link ancient trade and gold sources to the Philippines
. - Archaeological evidence, like the Tell Qasile shard, is used to validate the existence of Ophir and its trade of gold
.
- The authors are convinced that their research “demonstrate[s] indisputably that this ancient land of gold is none other than the Philippines”
. - They challenge readers to “test it for yourself” and weigh the evidence
. - The book anticipates skepticism and addresses alternative theories, aiming to provide a comprehensive argument
. It is important to note that the claims made in this research are controversial and contradict mainstream scholarly views on the location of Ophir and other Biblical sites.
That is hardly a ringing endorsement or an analysis of the book's contents either.
However, let's take into consideration I uploaded Tim's full book while it appears he uploaded his research like Johnny Cash, One Piece At A Time. I think that is where the reason for our different results lies. Tim uploaded each piece of his research individually, asked questions about it, then uploaded the next bit until he finally got the review he desired. I uploaded everything at once and asked for an analysis and got a negative review every single time. Uploading everything all at once as it is presented in The Search For King Solomon's Treasure rather than uploading a single piece at a time and discussing it until moving on to the next is likely what accounts for the difference in our results.
Tim once again mouths off about what I wrote concerning the word valid, namely a valid argument is not necessarily a sound argument. Validity has only to do with the form of the argument and not its soundness. A valid argument can be unsound.
Oops! Redefining the Word 'Valid'?In a bizarre twist, the blogger now claims that 'valid' doesn’t mean 'sound'—despite every dictionary in existence, including Merriam-Webster, listing 'sound' as a synonym of 'valid' and 'unsound' as its antonym. We understand he’s running out of arguments, but trying to redefine English in real time is not the way to win a debate.
For the record:- A 'valid' argument is one that is logically and factually sound.- A 'sound' conclusion is one that follows from evidence and reason.ChatGPT’s statement that our research is 'valid' is precisely a confirmation that it is sound—despite the blogger’s misuse of the language.
There he goes, off like Forrest Gump running to get the English dictionary again. Valid does not mean sound. A valid argument is one that is logically sound, i.e. consistent, but not necessarily factually sound. We are talking about technical terms here not country boy folk wisdom. How about running to the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy?
A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false. Otherwise, a deductive argument is said to be invalid.
A deductive argument is sound if and only if it is both valid, and all of its premises are actually true. Otherwise, a deductive argument is unsound.
It is important to stress that the premises of an argument do not have actually to be true in order for the argument to be valid.
I'm not quoting the whole definition here. The point is a valid argument does not mean it is sound. Here is an example of a valid yet unsound argument based on Tim's research.
A. If an island depicted on a map is in the location of the Philippines then it must be the Philippines.
B. On the 1492 Behaim Globe Chryse is depicted in the location of the Philippines.
C. Therefore Chryse on the 1492 Behaim Globe is the Philippines.
That argument is valid because the conclusion follows from the premises. It is unsound because the premises and conclusion are false. The Philippines is not depicted on the 1492 Behaim Globe because it was not discovered until 1521.
None, or practically none, of Tim's premises are true. However, his arguments formed from those premises can be determined valid by A.I. if they are logically consistent. ChatGPT and other A.I. models affirmed Tim's argument about Chryse being the Philippines on the Behaim Globe not because it is factually sound but because it is logically consistent. Read the PDF linked beneath the biased prompts Tim gave and pay close attention to ChatGPT's responses.
Here is ChatGPT to explain it for him.
2. Logical Consistency Does Not Equal Historical Truth
An argument can be logically sound but still factually incorrect or based on selective evidence.
For example, an AI could review a flat Earth argument and find it well-structured without concluding that the Earth is actually flat.
AI does not automatically challenge biases, omissions, or selective use of sources unless explicitly asked to do so.
Thus, ChatGPT’s affirmation of sound reasoning does not mean that the research is necessarily historically, theologically, or archaeologically correct.
https://thegodculturephilippines.blogspot.com/2025/03/the-god-culture-ai-peer-review_31.html
One a final note Tim writes the following:
Interestingly, this topic even came up in a talk show interview this morning, as some of our viewers had received his latest blog spam. We thank them for sharing, and we encourage everyone: don’t be misled by anonymous accusations rooted in projection, not truth.
I have no idea what Tim is talking about here. I have not sent any of my "latest blog spam" to his viewers or anyone else. But Tim has been reading this blog and responding to it.
No comments:
Post a Comment