Timothy Jay Schwab, the soul murdering charlatan who is the founder and head of the Philippine-based online cult known as The God Culture, has published two hour long videos rehashing his Lost Tribes series. These videos deal especially with where the Northern Tribes went. Spoiler alert: some sailed to the Philippines and became Filipinos while others stayed behind and became Kurds. The Southern Tribes migrated to Central Africa, magically transmogrified into Hamitic negroes, and were sold in the transatlantic slave trade in a targeted attack against the Lost Tribes of Israel.
1:05:12 The Southern kingdom migrated into Africa. That was its only choice at that time, in Egypt, Pathros, and modern Sudan and Kush or, uh, Ethiopia, essentially, but not the little modern country which is a small sliver of ancient Ethiopia according to abundant maps we cover, at least 20 of them, but all of ancient Ethiopia which is all the way over to what was called the Slave Coast. Ding, ding ding! Yeah, That's why the colonialists went there and that's why they targeted those people. They were targeting Lost Tribes of Israel
That's exactly the kind of history they don't teach in school because it is absolutely false. The truth is Hamitic Africans captured and sold other Hamitic Africans as slaves to Jews, Europeans, and Arabs. Everyone's hands are dirty when it comes to the African slave trade. They don't teach that in school either.
At the end of part two Timothy tells us that these two videos will serve as a nice shorter version of the longer series.
1:13:43 This will serve as a nice shorter version specific to answers in 2 Esdras
But he also tells us we should check out the rest of his main Lost Tribes series to get the whole case in detail. However, one does not need to do that. In these two videos there is enough bad history, jumping to conclusions, and out right lying and deception that if one is paying close attention they will throw Timothy's message in the burning pile of garbage right where it belongs. As I have written elsewhere, if Tim cannot deal honestly with his sources here he won't be dealing honestly with them there either.
In this article I propose to look at just a few of the historical, linguistic, and interpretive errors Tim makes. I have gone over many of his errors in detail elsewhere but these particular ones I have not. Let's dive into this history from Clown World and see exactly where Tim is wrong and is actually lying on purpose.
Where to begin? Let's start with his exposition of 2 Esdras 13:41-42.
15:00 "Where never mankind dwelt." Now, some get confused by that so basically they will land in a desert where no man lives. That's pretty simple and it will prove out to be so. Looking for a country that was not inhabited at the time is a really illiterate way to read that and nonsense. "That they might there keep their statutes which they never kept in their own land." Essentially these are taking the oath of a Rechabite history will even tell us and we will find a humble lifestyle among these people when the colonists make it to this land. We will not find the great society which is a nephilim aim yet what most are looking for especially academics and scholars it's called willing ignorance my friends. They don't even know who these people were or how they operated and they're looking for a society that could not exist in there in the manner in which they operated. It just doesn't work.
This passage in 2 Esdras 13 says that the destination of the lost tribes was very far away to a place "where mankind never dwelt." There is nothing here to indicate it is specifically a desert. The text is straightforward and literal. These people are going to an uninhabited land. Tim's calling this a desert rests on his reading of Thomas Stackhouse's interpretation of Abraham Farissol which he mentions in part 2.
50:17 So he said they migrated there, Ferrissol, from Assyria by ship, imagine that! And then they land in a desert to which name does not survive, Chabor. Chabor. This is the Philippines as there is only one desert there on which to land and guess where it is?
If the name of the desert does not survive then how does Tim or Farissol know its name is Chabor? Read or listen to what Tim says and look at the quote in his slide. It says Farissol places the Desert of Chabor on the Indian Sea. That's not the Philippines! Indeed elsewhere the Desert of Chabor is placed closer to Saudi Arabia. I have written a whole article quoting the entirety of Chapter 14 of Farissol's book. The story he relates of a lost tribesman visiting Rome via the Desert of Chabor bears no resemblance to anything Tim has said. The Desert of Chabor is placed nowhere near the Philippines. I urge Tim to read what Farissol actually wrote and stop relying on secondhand hostile witnesses to bolster his claims. Contrary to Tim's assertions the writings of Farissol are not dead but are studied to this day especially by Jewish scholars. That is why I was able to find an English translation of chapter 14.
Tim's interpretation of this verse continues by telling us that in the land they migrate to they will be keeping their statutes "which they never kept in their own land" means they "are taking the oath of a Rechabite." That is a reference to Jeremiah 35 where the Rechabites have taken an oath to live in tents and never drink wine.
6 But they said, We will drink no wine: for Jonadab the son of Rechab our father commanded us, saying, Ye shall drink no wine, neither ye, nor your sons for ever:
7 Neither shall ye build house, nor sow seed, nor plant vineyard, nor have any: but all your days ye shall dwell in tents; that ye may live many days in the land where ye be strangers.
Tim does not get this interpretation from the the text of 2 Esdras 13 but from Thomas Stackhouse's interpretation of Farissol who says that the lost tribes live after the ancient manner of the Rechabites.
Others he places in the desert of Chabor, which, according to him, lies upon the Indian sea, where they live, in the manner of the ancient Rechabites, without houses, sowing, or the use of wine.
Indeed Farissol does write the following in chapter 14 of his book:
As understood from his own assertions, this Jew was from the company of the two tribes, and he farther said that he was an inhabitant of those deserts, and, like the Rechabites, dwell in tents, and that his station was in the Desert of Chabor, which is in Asia Major. Beneath them were the rest of the ten tribes, near to the deserts adjoining Mecca and Gjudda, which are adjacent to the Red Sea. They have each and all of them their chiefs and princes, and the people are as the sand of the seashore for numbers. They raise spices, pepper in particular, as also medical drugs ; and, indeed, they possess many excellent things, as we shall show hereafter.
https://philippinefails.blogspot.com/2021/04/the-god-culture-sinai-in-luzon-and-lost.html
Again, this looks like nothing Tim is saying. The Desert of Chabor is located in Asia Major in such a place that Mecca is to the south. That's NOT the Philippines. Not to mention Filipinos do not live in tents and they do drink wine. Tim has no support at all from the text of 2 Esdras to say that these lost tribes lived in the Philippines like Rechabites. There is also no support from Farissol to say that the Lost Tribes "are taking the oath of a Rechabite." Farrisol says they lived in tents like Rechabites not that they had actually taken the oath of a Rechabite. There is a big difference. It's the same as saying Timothy Jay Schwab lives like a Filipino vs Timothy Jay Schwab is a Filipino.
The real reason Tim says these people took the oath of a Rechabite is because he thinks it takes the burden off him of having to find proof that an ancient Hebrew society existed in the Philippines.
Essentially these are taking the oath of a Rechabite history will even tell us and we will find a humble lifestyle among these people when the colonists make it to this land. We will not find the great society which is a nephilim aim yet what most are looking for especially academics and scholars it's called willing ignorance my friends. They don't even know who these people were or how they operated and they're looking for a society that could not exist in there in the manner in which they operated. It just doesn't work.
What exactly is a humble lifestyle? Tim never defines that and he is apparently forgetting the Boxer Codex which he uses prominently to prove that the Philippines is the land of gold, Ophir. Do people living a humble lifestyle dress like this:
In the Boxer Codex even slaves are depicted as wearing gold! Is that humble? Do people living a humble lifestyle live in large houses or palaces?
Those who saw Soliman's house before it was burned, say that it was very large, and that it contained many valuable things, such as money, copper, iron, porcelain, blankets, wax, cotton, and wooden vats full of brandy; but everything was burned to the ground with the house.
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/13616/13616-h/13616-h.htm
The houses and dwellings of all these natives are universally set upon stakes and arigues [i.e., columns] high above the ground. Their rooms are small and the roofs low. They are built and tiled with wood and bamboos, and covered and roofed with nipa-palm leaves. Each house is separate, and is not built adjoining another. In the lower part are enclosures made by stakes and bamboos, where their fowls and cattle are reared, and the rice pounded and cleaned. One ascends into the houses by means of ladders that can be drawn up, which are made from two bamboos. Above are their open batalanes [galleries] used for household duties; the parents and [grown] children live together. There is little adornment and finery in the houses, which are called bahandin.
Besides these houses, which are those of the common people and those of less importance, there are the chiefs' houses. They are built upon trees and thick arigues, with many rooms and comforts. They are well constructed of timber and planks, and are strong and large. They are furnished and supplied with all that is necessary, and are much finer and more substantial than the others. They are roofed, however, as are the others, with the palm-leaves called nipa. These keep out the water and the sun more than do shingles or tiles, although the danger from fires is greater.
https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/7001/pg7001.html
There is not enough space here to continue citing eyewitness reports from the 1500's. The fact is Tim is wrong when he says, "We will not find the great society" in the Philippines. First of all what does that even mean? Second of all the Philippines was divided into nobles and chiefs and commoners. The Spanish did indeed find a great society which was stratified like societies elsewhere. Chiefs and nobles were decked out in gold and jewels and the chiefs threw lavish parties complete with coconut wine. Pigafetta wrote about those parties.
Aside from that there was no monolithic kingdom in these islands comparable to what Tim claims when he says the Philippines is Sheba. Here is a map rendering what these islands looked like before the Spanish landed here.
Tim is a complete moron. What he really means by saying the lost tribes sailed to the Philippines and lived a humble lifestyle is that he does not actually want to investigate and do archeological research to prove his claims.
Many seek this architecture in demand to prove this narrative and they are stuck in a false paradigm. There is none to be expected nor has any other nation on earth produced such nor will they.
Ancient Ophir is never described as having temples at all whether alone ones of gold, it is never recored to have great infrastructure in any sense just a mega-abundance of resources. The humble lifestyle of the Filipino even fits the oath of a Rechabite as Farrisol said.
pg. 128-129
https://philippinefails.blogspot.com/2021/01/the-god-culture-search-for-king.html
Tim thinks this interpretation of the lack of evidence for his claims takes the burden of proof off him but it does not. There is no evidence that there was a great kingdom named Sheba in the Philippines nor is their evidence that a Hebrew society existed here. Tim says that's because they did not leave any evidence of their existence. It's totally ad hoc reasoning. He is making stuff up. Tim's history of the Philippines is exactly like the invisible fire breathing dragon living in Carl Sagan's garage.
Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so.
http://people.whitman.edu/~herbrawt/classes/110/Sagan.pdf
One further thing to note about Tim's interpretation of this passage, that the Lost Tribes lived like Rechabites, is that it ignores the plain reading of the text. The text says:
"That they might there keep their statutes which they never kept in their own land."
This passage obviously means they will be observing the Mosaic Law. The Rechabites lived in a manner that was not prescribed to the whole of Israel. The Rechabites were only one family and their manner of living was by no means the statues given to Israel but was handed down by their own familial patriarch. What Tim should be looking for is not a people living a "humble lifestyle" like Rechabites but a people keeping the Mosaic Law. Is there a record of any people in East or Central Asia who kept the law of Moses and lived like Jews or Isrealites? No. Certainly not in the Philippines. There is no record of a people observing the Mosaic Law in these islands. There is no record of an ancient Hebrew culture in any of these islands.
It's funny how this man constantly rails against the Rabbis and the Jews and yet believes what the Jewish Rabbi Abraham Farissol has to say about the Lost Tribes. Could Timothy Jay Schwab be any more of a hypocrite by rejecting the Midrash and Talmud and yet believing in the Talmudic Jewish Fables of Abraham Farissol?
Let's take a look at Tim's linguistic method. Linguistics is a big part of what he does. If a place name has a Hebrew sound and he can wrest a meaning from it that fits, then it fits, logic and sense be damned. So, the Lost Tribes miraculously made their way across the Euphrates as God parted the river like he did the Red Sea. Then they sacrificed in worship. Now, this act of sacrificing is not stated at all in the text of 2 Esdras but Tim gets a precedence for sacrificing from the exodus from Egypt and the return from Babylon. These Israelites have just been delivered across the Euphrates River by God so they had to sacrifice. According to Tim we can know this from place names in the vicinity.
32:17 Now, let's fast forward for a moment though but again we're going to give this more definition as we go. Here is the third exodus we're in the second exodus in Ezra right now but this is the third this is when the southern kingdom migrates from Babylon back to Judea that's what this account is about and this is from Ezra the same guy. Now, what did they do on the way back to Judea? Well, they also made smoke sacrifices burnt offerings unto Yahuah this is the precedence established by Moses and repeated, remember this is Ezra 2, by Ezra in both of these migrations. The Northern Kingdom in which we are dealing and the even the next one the Southern Kingdom return to Judea they do the same thing. So can we find a place near the Euphrates which could fit such a designation that perhaps survives linguistically? We believe we can strongly.
So, here's where we left off we cross the Euphrates at al Ashar defined as such in Hebrew even a crossing essentially going forward. Now, where did they go? And Asher of course a lost tribe of the northern kingdom even. They would not be able to go deeper into Saudi Arabia as that was controlled by Ishmael's descendants and they would not have allowed a mass migration through their land they're the enemy. We see this even in the first exodus with the descendants of Lot and remember these are mortal enemies. The sons of Lot, Ishmael, and Esau are enemies of Israel. We see that in Psalm 83 and several other places. The lost the uh actually the temple priests uh also identify that in the Dead Sea scrolls.
So, that would be hostile territory and it just wouldn't fit uh their destination. They weren't going to uh return to Mount Sinai and their land and homes in northern Israel were already occupied by the Samaritans so that ain't happening, their enemies who became their replacements even in infused religious practice for that matter. We track those Samaritans and Babylonians. To this day we today we call them Jews. That's a fact. Go back and watch that part of the series.
So, where did they go well they went to a place still named smoke sacrifices. That's right to this day this nation called Qatar or Qatar or however you want to pronounce it doesn't really matter but the Hebrew means to make sacrifices of smoke as an act of worship. Boom! There it is! That's exactly what we are looking for and it's right there in this region. There you go. No one knows how it got its name. Interesting. We believe we do. It's Hebrew and the Lost Tribes likely named it. Specifically within this area is a city called Dukhan right on the coast right where there'd be a nice port in fact where they discovered oil in Qatar so and what does Dukhan mean al-Dukhan it means smoke. How about that?
First of all Tim expects us to believe that
the neighborhood in modern day Basra, Iraq known as al-Ashar was anciently named by the Lost Tribes as they passed through. As if Moselms would retain that name for over a thousand years. It beggars belief. Not to mention no one stayed behind. According to Tim everyone left going forward towards the Philippines. Al-Ashar does not mean "going forward" nor is it a reference to the tribe of Asher. It is not even Hebrew! It is Arabic for wise.
Basra was not even founded until 638 AD as a garrison so there is no way wandering Israelites founded a city in this region or gave the place a name which has stuck for over 2,000 years.
The same goes for Tim's etymology of Qatar. The Hebrew is actually pronounced kee-tor and it has NOTHING to do with "sacrifices of smoke as an act of worship." This word is used 4 times in 3 verses. Here they are.
There is nothing about "sacrifices of smoke as an act of worship" in any of these usages. Why would they name the place they sacrificed to God "smoke." Think of all the place names designated by the Patriarchs in the Old Testament like Bethel and Peniel and Jehovahjireh all of which incorporate the name of God. Why wouldn't these Israelites give a name to the place where they worshipped God which incorporates His name? It does not make any sense.
Lastly, Tim is lying when he says no one knows how Qatar got its name. Why would the Muslims who inhabit this region keep a Hebrew name for their land? They would not. The truth is the name is quite ancient and has nothing to do with the Lost Tribes. It has to do with the name of the inhabitants of the region.
Pliny the Elder, a Roman writer, documented the earliest account pertaining to the inhabitants of the peninsula around the mid-first century AD, referring to them as the Catharrei, a designation which may have derived from the name of a prominent local settlement. A century later, Ptolemy produced the first known map to depict the peninsula, referring to it as Catara. The map also referenced a town named "Cadara" to the east of the peninsula. The term 'Catara' (inhabitants, Cataraei) was exclusively used until the 18th century, after which 'Katara' emerged as the most commonly recognised spelling. Eventually, after several variations – 'Katr', 'Kattar' and 'Guttur' – the modern derivative Qatar was adopted as the country's name.
Every claim in that paragraph from Wikipedia is sourced. The fact is Tim is wrong about the etymology of Qatar being Hebrew and he is lying when he says, "No one knows how it got its name." Can he not do a simple Google search to discover the etymology of Qatar? Apparently not or maybe he did and he selectively omitted this fact in order to make his claim look good. I would not put that past him.
At this point in Tim's story the Lost Tribes have made it to Qatar and are now waiting for passage to sail to....where? The Philippines of course but 2 Esdras does not say they sailed to the Philippines. In fact it does not say they sailed anywhere. On its face 2 Esdras says they crossed the Euphrates and kept going. There is nothing about going south to Qatar. Tim's route bears no resemblance to the text. He says they crossed the Euphrates at the most narrow point going WEST and then they went south along the border of Arabia. The text implies that these people crossed the Euphrates going Eastward and continued walking Eastward for a year and a half. Though of course no cardinal directions are named.
The text says they eventually made their way to Arsareth.
So what is Arsareth and where is it?
9:16 First, what is the word Arsareth? Does it really never exist in scripture otherwise? Not only does it, this is a very specific place. Asah erets, Arsareth. Yes same Hebrew word or words together into one. It appears in Genesis chapter 2 verse 4. Here it is right here. This is the very land where Yahuah created. Where he “arsarethed” “made the earth” in English. It's identified as Arsareth, made the earth, right there and this is no mystery at all. So, we're looking for what is known in scripture as the land of creation.
On what basis does Tim claim Arsareth is a Hebrew compound word? He does not tell us. He just jumps right in and squishes these two words together in an unholy matrimony, much like his own. Does it make linguistic sense to take two words from the middle of a sentence in Genesis 2:4 and cram them together to make a place name? He is lying when he says Arsareth appears in Genesis 2:4. The two words asa and eres are there in the middle of a sentence but the proper place name Arsareth is only to be found in 2 Esdras 13:45. This is another example of Tim's inept and confused Hebrew linguistics and more deception in order to reel in gullible viewers who do not check up on him and test what he says.
And what about the Book of Jubilees which gives the name of Elda to the land of creation? If Jubilees is scripture and the author of 2 Esdras, whom Tim thinks is actually Ezra, was aware of this book, which Tim claims is very ancient and is in fact the Book of Jasher, then why would he not use the name Elda?
14:35 Now, Jubilees however tells us that this land formerly was named Elda and that it is the very land of creation where Adam and Eve were exiled after the Garden. This really tells us how we should have read Genesis 3:23 all along as it is literal. Adam would literally till the adamah. That's actually the same word as the the dirt, the soil, the dust from which he was created. Red soil. Same place imagine that. Now, when we found Havilah and Ophir and the Garden of Eden, they're all in the same area, same region uh we also found the land of creation. That's just fact. Again, review that case. We're moving forward here so our series. "Where he made the earth" Arsareth is the Philippines. Done.
If Arsareth really means "where he made the earth" and really indicates the land of creation why not use the name Elda so everyone would know exactly to where he was referring? Why make up the name Arsareth out of two Hebrew words found in the middle of a sentence? It does not make any sense and this inconsistency seems to have slipped past Tim.
What if Arsareth means something completely different? According to the Jewish Encyclopedia it does. But note how Timothy Jay Schwab cites the entry for Arsareth.
That is HALF OF THE ENTRY!!! Here is the other half.
The name, it has been suggested by Schiller-Szinessy, is taken from Deut. xxix. 24-27, "Because they forsook the covenant of the Lord . . . and went and served other gods . . . the Lord rooted them out of their land . . . and cast them into another land [ereẓ aḦeret] as this day." This passage is made to refer (in Mishnah Sanh. x. 3) to the Ten Tribes (compare Tosef., Sanh. xiii. 12; Bab. ib. 110b; Yer. ib. x. 29c; Ab. R. N., ed. Schechter, A, xxxvi. 108, and Bacher, "Agada der Tannaiten," i. 143). But different opinions are expressed by Akiba and Eliezer—the traditions are rather confused as to the names—whether the Ten Tribes may be expected to return or not, since this point is not determined in the Scriptural verse. One of them takes the words "as this day" to signify that "as the day goeth, but doth not return, so shall they who are cast off not return"; the other explains the words: "as the day begins with the darkness of the night, but turns into day, so shall the darkness of their banishment be turned into bright daylight" (Mishnah Sanh. l.c.). The fourth Book of Esdras took the latter view, which was adopted also by R. Judah ha-Nasi in the Tosefta (l.c.), who refers to Isa. xxvii. 13.
https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/1867-arzareth
Tim in all his dishonesty neglected to cite this alternate definition. Funny, as he is quick to dismiss what Rabbis say and there are several references here to Rabbinical writings. He missed an opportune moment to once again mock Rabbinic interpretations he does not understand. Let's go a little deeper here and find out more about this difficult word Arsareth.
Even a cursory reading uncovers that Esdras is referencing the core story in 2 Kings, the exile by Shalmaneser. He also clearly alludes to the Deuteronomic verse foretelling the exile of the tribes to “another land.” The first usage merely echoes the verse in Deuteronomy (29:28) and speaks of an unnamed land, an “other” land—in Hebrew, Erez Ahereth. It is simply a land other than the land of Israel. As opposed to known locations of exile (“the rivers of Babylon,” “Egypt”), it is unknown. Recall that Deuteronomy had addressed the lostness of the tribes by emphasizing the total anonymity of their new place of dwelling. Esdras, however, names the place by converting the Hebrew words Eretz Ahereth into one designator: Arzareth (the replacing of the “e” with “a” is because when not in construct state, the Hebrew word Eretz reads Aretz). That “other land” of Deuteronomy, previously defined only by what it was not, becomes a real and concrete entity with a proper name: “a region which is called Arzareth.”
From a theological standpoint, Arzareth is of course a metaphor, an imaginary and pristine place juxtaposed with our mundane and tainted world. Yet, at the same time, it is presented as a real location, reached via familiar and known geographical markers. The word itself is simply a mis-translation of the Hebrew term for “another land.” Esdras’s insistence on turning “another land” into an actual place (as the reconstructed Hebrew would have it, “it is a land which is called ‘another land’”) obscured the possibility of mistranslation for a strikingly long time. “Arzareth” wasn’t taken as a simple error, a mistranslation or mistranscription or simple garbling of Erez Ahereth. Over the course of centuries, attempts to identify Arzareth, to pinpoint it on a map, and to understand the meaning of the name only underscored its presumed realness.
The possibility of mere mistranslation was raised only at the close of the nineteenth century, by William Aldis Wright (1831–1914), a leading British philologist and noted Bible and Shakespeare scholar. “Is not the Arzareth of our Apocrypha simply Eretz Ahereth (‘another land’) of that passage, corrupted by an ignorant translator into a proper name?” He concluded: “Arzareth of verse 47 is the ‘terram aliam’ [other land] of verse 40.”
The Ten Lost Tribes: A World History, pgs. 62-63
The interpretation of Arzareth by William Aldis Wright as being a mistranslation of "another land" shows up in the Journal of Philology, vol. 3, 1870, pgs. 113-114.
Is not the Arzareth of our Apocrypha simply Eretz Ahereth (A. V. ‘another land’) of that passage, corrupted by an ignorant translator into a proper name?
The conjecture has the double merit of ingenuity and simplicity, and will appear even more probable than it does at first sight if we refer to ver. 40, where the same phrase occurs, 'et translati sunt in terram aliam!
Indeed, calling a land in which no man ever dwelt to which the Lost Tribes were led by God "another land" is not as convoluted as making a compound word out of two words in Genesis 2:4 and saying the Israelites were making their way to "the land of creation." Verse 45 where Arzareth occurs also calls back to verse 40 which says:
Those are the ten tribes, which were carried away prisoners out of their own land in the time of Osea the king, whom Salmanasar the king of Assyria led away captive, and he carried them over the waters, and so came they into another land.
These are things worth considering which, in all his ignorance, Tim passes by.
One of Timothy Jay Schwab's most important sources for all his erroneous and unhistorical claims about the Philippines is the 1492 Erdapfel Map drawn up by Martin Behaim.
37:29 Here is Chryse, or Crisis, identified even by shape and location as Luzon Island Philippines. The main or large island. Manila is there, the capital city, and Maniola written in on this map even really is referring to Manila.
Look at that jumbled mess of garbage. Are we really supposed to believe that is the Philippines? It does not look a thing like the Philippine archipelago. But what really takes the cake is Tim actually claims this map has a reference to Manila. That's right. This map from 1492 mentions a city the Spanish would found in the 1570's. This reference is also in the middle of the sea and not to a city on any island but somehow it's referring to the City of Manila.
What a crock! This assertion shows how absolutely ignorant Tim is. Yes, there is text on the map referring to Maniole but that is a reference to ten magnetic islands first described by Ptolemy. Did Tim even think to translate or to find a translation of the German? What a lazy blockhead.
difer jnfell findt zehen gehaifen maniole dafelbft mag kain fchiff faren das eifen an hat umb defs magnet willen der dafelbft wechft (K 5 s).
There are ten of these islands called Maniole. No ship having iron in it dare navigate near them because of the magnet which is found there.
Ptolemy (VII 2) has "Maniolae insulae decim, quarum incolae sunt anthropophagi, in his gignitur magnes." These Magnet Islands of Ptolemy, however, are placed in the Sinus Gangeticus, whilst Behaim's legend is shifted to the east of the mainland. On fabulous Magnet Rocks, to be dreaded by mariners, because on approaching them the iron nails flew out, and the ship fell to pieces, see Peschel's essay in 'Abhandlungen zur Erd- und Völkerkundes,' Leipzig, 1877, p. 44 .
http://globemakers.com/facsimile/globe_behaim.html
Here is the full citation from Ptolemy:
There are said to be other islands here adjoining, ten in number, called Maniolae, from which they say that boats, in which there are nails, are kept away, lest at any time the magnetic stone which is found near these islands should draw them to destruction. For this reason they say that these boats are drawn up on the shore and that they are strengthened with beams of wood. They also say that these islands are occupied by cannibals called Manioli. There are means of approach from these islands to the mainland.
Geography pg. 157
Ptolemy says the cannibals occupying the Maniolae islands are called Manioli. Imagine that. How will Tim twist that information?
There is nothing on this map from 1492 referring to Manila or the Philippines. For Tim to say otherwise is "willing ignorance" or perhaps he knows what the reference is to and he is intentionally lying to his audience again. Either way he is wrong. The Behaim map does not support his thesis that Chryse and Argyre are the Philippines. His utterly false and ignorant interpretation of this map underscores the fact that he is constantly twisting information to fit his paradigm. It is far worse than Tim not knowing what he is talking about. He is not merely an ignoramus. Timothy Jay Schwab is intentionally lying to his audience.
Now, I could continue but I think I have covered enough here. Tim repeats the same lies about Pomponius Mela, Dionysius Perigretes, the Periplus of the Erythean Sea, Dr. Craig Austin, and Professor Adrian Horridge. I have written at length about every single one of those subjects. If this article and everything else I have written about Timothy Jay Schwab's shoddy research is not enough to convince you that he is a liar and has no idea what he is talking about then I don't know what to tell you.
Let me conclude by saying something about "proof." Just because one has pulled out a lot of old maps and books and says, "See here, it says so," does not mean one has proven anything. Just because one states a "fact" does not mean one has proven anything. One has especially not proven anything if they twist the maps and books they are using to fit their agenda like Tim constantly does. Tim also says and writes stuff that he simply declines to prove. The most egregious thing in his book which he states as a fact without proving is that Filipinos and Greeks were circumnavigating Africa to trade with one another.
Tim does not explicitly write that the Greeks were sailing "the long way around Africa" to the Philippines but that is implied when he writes:
The Greeks traded with the Philippines for gold and silver roughly around 800-150 B.C. and Mela retained this from the "olden writers" of Greece.
p.43
The sentence from page 43 implies the Greeks circumnavigated Africa because, as Tim mentions in the paragraph from page 136, the Red Sea port was broken. Even if it weren't broken the Greeks did not control that territory so it would have been impossible for them to sail out of that port.
Tim offers ZERO PROOF for his claim that the Greeks and Filipinos traded with one another by circumnavigating Africa and when he was asked for proof he declined to give it. So, yes there are things in his book that he states without proving. He is lying when he says otherwise. His books and videos are chock full of many errors, some of which he asserts without proving, which I have discussed at length on this blog.
These two videos about the Lost Tribes are awful. They are filled with error of every sort both historical and theological. It seems everything Tim does is a massive deception of some sort. It's sad because this man resettled in the Philippines with his thrice married second wife and started hawking his lies uninvited. Filipinos don't deserve to have some middle-aged American immigrate to their country for the express purpose of hunting their souls. Filipinos do not deserve to be subject to the lies of Timothy Jay Schwab.
