The God Culture: Timothy Jay Schwab Uses a Baby Name Dictionary to Interpret The Book of Jubilees and Claims Noah Mentions Fairbanks, Alaska

The fact that Timothy Jay Schwab really believes Noah referred to Fairbanks, Alaska in the 2nd Temple Jewish text The Book of Jubilees is astounding in it's magnitude of ignorance. Words fail to describe this absolutely ridiculous and outrageous claim. Of all the things Tim says which prove that he is a total fraud who thinks he knows what he is talking about but actually does not, and there are many things he says which prove that, this claim takes the cake. It is the rancid cream at the top of Timothy's rotten crop. It deserves an article all of it's own.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXK1Z8ZZCCk

The first mention of this claim is in his video Flood Series - Part 4: Noah Divides All of Earth: Ham & Japheth from the Book of Jubilees.

32:37: And it extends until it approaches the west of Fara. Here we go again we are on the west coast of Europe. Now we are heading west further. This means across the ocean to the western side of Fara, whatever that is. Again, there is no historical reference to Fara that we can find necessarily, however the word of Fara means beautiful lovely, pleasant, fair and what's to the west of Europe? North America. America, America the beautiful. Coincidence? Maybe. However let's look at this one other way. Here's a thought. There is a place on the western side of North America called Fairbanks Alaska. Beautiful home of the Northern Lights. Again, we are theorizing on this one. But wouldn't it make sense that some place in Alaska would fit this best as the other territories are already solidified? So we're not really stretching to say that.

There is a lot happening in this little paragraph. Tim is discussing the word "Fara" which appears in Jubilees 8:27. Jubilees was composed in Hebrew, translated into Greek, translated into Ethiopic, and then translated into English.  There is no complete Greek or Hebrew text existent. It only exists in full in the Ethiopic. Tim is using the English translation and he says that "Fara" means beautiful. The slide shows the source for that definition is thinkbabynames.com

What does Fara mean?

Fara as a name for girls. The meaning of the name Fara is "lovely, pleasant". Fara is a version of Farrah (Middle English, Arabic): from the English word "fair".

http://www.thinkbabynames.com/meaning/0/Fara

He connects this word, which means beautiful, to America because of the song "America the Beautiful." Then he says "Fara" just might be FAIRBANKS, ALASKA as it is home of the beautiful Northern Lights. 

What does the song "America the Beautiful" have to do with the Book of Jubilees?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America_the_Beautiful

Katharine Lee Bates wrote the words to that song. Was she an unwitting tool of prophecy? Tim does not elaborate but I wish he had because it would have been interesting to hear his mangled explanation.

So, to recap Tim is studying an ancient book written in Hebrew, translated into Ethiopic and then into English, and in order to find out what the obscure word "Fara" means he consults Thinkbabynames.com where he finds the English name "Fara" which means beautiful and then he says it might mean America or Fairbanks, Alaska! That is insane. In order to get to the deep meaning of a word from a 2nd century B.C. Jewish writing he consults a modern day baby name dictionary that gives him the definition of a similar sounding word that is not Hebrew at all and he applies it to modern day Fairbanks, Alaska.

Is this the deep and profound research that Timothy Jay Schwab and The God Culture claim to be doing? Consulting a modern day baby name dictionary to ascertain the meaning of an obscure word in an ancient Hebrew text? Who does that? Not a real researcher. No serious researcher would consult a baby name dictionary to interpret an ancient text. And he has the gall to lash out at scholars who have actually studied Jubilees all their lives and call them ignorant! In this same video he says:

12:04 Yes we read scholars. We find it useful from time to time but many times we read and we really question how they could arrive at such decisions.

They come to their decisions because they have studied the texts, the languages, the religious beliefs, and the culture, all the things necessary to know to put Jubilees in the right context or paradigm. That's how they come to their decisions. How does Tim come to his decisions? What prompted him to interpret the Book of Jubilees by using a baby name dictionary? Who in their right mind would do something so completely and utterly asinine and absurd?

This video was published on July 18, 2017. Three years later Tim published his annotated version of Jubilees. This claim about Fairbanks, Alaska is still part of his system but he has tweaked it. Apparently he realized the absolute stupidity of consulting a baby name dictionary to interpret an ancient text so he gets rid of that source entirely.

On his map on page 86 of Jubilees we read the following.

We do not have a clear track on Fara in history but the directions are extremely clear it is in this region. Especially since Shem is Asia. Fara in Old Norse means “Passage.” That could fit the Bering Strait. The process of elimination says so.

Now "Fara" does not mean beautiful. It's Old Norse for "passage." Tim gives no source for this etymology but it can be found at Wiktionary. It is just as dumb to think that a text originally written in Hebrew used a singular Old Norse term as it is to interpret Jubilees by a baby name dictionary. Why would the Hebrew author of Jubilees, whom Tim claims is Moses, employ an Old Norse word in one and only one instance in his text? Where and when did Moses learn Old Norse? Just how old is this Old Norse word? As usual Timothy does not offer any explanation.

You can see Fairbanks, Alaska is on the map as well as the Fairweather Range. That is because Tim, despite saying that "Fara" is Old Norse, means passage, and could refer to the Bering Strait, still thinks it refers to Fairbanks, Alaska or some similar sounding place like the Fairweather Range or the Farallon Islands. That's what he says in his note to Jubilees 8:27.

Based on the orientation, this crosses the Atlantic to the West Coast of N. America. Likely. Fairbanks, Alaska or Farallon Islands off of San Fran. The 5 great islands affirms this as 4 of them are in N. Canada

On page 259 of the book he makes the same assertion. "Fara" is Fairbanks, Alaska.

In Japheth’s territory, he crosses the Atlantic into the Americas as he is in Gadir and heads into the Ocean to the West. There is no other way to interpret that. The five great islands also give this away as in the Northern Hemisphere of his territory, 5 of the 10 largest islands exist there. However, four of them are in Canada thus North America is invoked. This is why we believe Fara is Fairbanks, Alaska or similar in the area.

What happened to the Old Norse? What about the Bering Strait? Tim makes the wild and unfounded claim that "Fara" in this context is Old Norse, does not give any proof, doesn't give any reason, just leaves it there on the map with absolutely no discussion, and then abandons that interpretation completely in his notes.

Then he contradicts himself by saying that "Fara" is Fairbanks, Alaska! Why? There is nothing Old Norse about Fairbanks, Alaska. The modern town of Fairbanks, Alaska was founded in 1901. How would Noah know anything about Fairbanks, Alaska? Again, Tim offers no rationale for his conclusion and one is left to guess. My guess is that it is due to the phonetic similarity of "Fara" with Fairbanks, Fairweather, and Farralon. 

Tim attempts to both deny and explain all this away in his new video "What Territory Belongs to JAPHETH? Answers In Jubilees: Part 4." In this video he annotates the above map from The Book of Jubilees and has a few words to say about Fairbanks, Alaska.

He starts off this video by telling everyone that he has already mapped out the lands of Shem and Ham. Therefore every reference left when distributing Japheth's portion must fit within that blue territory on the map.

4:09 We will operate with this in mind because we know already this is Japheth's territory by default so to not look for those references within his territory already established his record would really just be willing ignorance which is something we do not want to be known for.

It's a tautology to say that every marker in Japheth's territory is Japheth's territory. What Tim really means is that despite him writing very clearly that Fara means Fairbanks, Alaska  he really did not mean that in a definitive way. Before continuing let's go over the progression here.

1. In his first video, which he has now deleted, he says Fara meaning Fairbanks, Alaska is only a theory.

2. In his map in The Book of Jubilees he has Fairbanks, Alaska as one of many possible interpretations of the word Fara along with the Fairweather Range and the Farallon Islands. Let's not forget that he has a question mark there so it's really Fairbanks, Alaska?

3.In his note to Jubilees 8:27 he says Fara is likely Fairbanks, Alaska.  The word likely and the question mark will be important for his discussion in the new video.

4. He ends his annotated Book of Jubilees by affirming that Fara is Fairbanks, Alaska or something similar perhaps.

In all of those instances Tim is hitting hard for Fairbanks, Alaska above any other interpretation. It is very hard to miss that. For him to deny that is to deny what is plain as day and to gaslight his readers and listeners.

 Back to the video.

8:17 We even place a note on the map, we'll show you, that we are not certain of the connection to Fairbanks, Alaska and there are question marks.

Not certain? What a lie. In his annotated Book of Jubilees he is rather certain that there is a connection to Fairbanks, Alaska in some way, shape, or form . Maybe he is reserving judgment but he says it's LIKELY. That is at least one degree of certainty.  Now he says "we are not certain of the connection to Fairbanks, Alaska" which is why there is a question mark next to it.

18:17 Fara also means passage in Old Norse fitting of the Bearing Strait the passage between the two continents essentially. As well, uh, I mean that's pretty self-explanatory that very well could be because well, Noah, because Noah mentions Alaska that'd be a pretty dumb thing to say, that's not what we say. But somewhere there is an ancient reference on the West Coast of North America to this Fara. That's what it is. Another ancient testament that Jubilees could not have been written by a Pharisee nor in the age of 150 B.C. in fact because these are very ancient directions, far more ancient.

Now the Old Norse angle has been revived. He says it means passage and that it is fitting of the Bearing Strait. But he does not say why. Instead he stumbles over his words and says it's just self-explanatory. I am sure he would deny it but he is once again asserting that Old Norse is in the text. If it is not in the text then his explanation of Fara as being Old Norse is entirely superfluous. 

He finishes by saying Fara is an ancient reference to the West Coast of North America! No matter how you slice it whatever Tim thinks Fara means it HAS TO MEAN a particular place on the West Coast of North America. That is what he says. That includes, possibly, Fairbanks Alaska! But how would Noah know that? Fairbanks was not even founded until 1901. It is not ancient at all.

Here is what Tim wants us to believe. After the flood Noah knew the geography of the entire earth. He used this knowledge to divide the earth among his three sons. Now, this ancient Fred MacMurray gives a portion of the earth to Japheth which consists of Europe and most of North America. In delineating the borders he uses an ancient place name, Fara, to designate the West Coast of North America. Where did this place name originate? Who was living on the West Coast in the time of Noah or before? Tim does not say. But this all falls apart because elsewhere Tim is very clear that Noah got his geography from Enoch. Enoch lived BEFORE THE FLOOD! After the flood it was a different world as Tim says the oceans were formed by the flood. Enoch's geography would be useless in the new world. So where does Noah actually get his geographical information, especially the place name Fara? Tim does not say and I still think he has not considered this objection, Enoch's antediluvian geographical knowledge vs the postdiluvian word of Noah, which completely obliterates his interpretation of Noah's division.

Despite telling us that Fara is an Old Norse word meaning passage and thus a fitting designation for the Bearing Strait just a few sentences later he again changes his tune.

19:36 The Farralon Islands off the coast of San Francisco are right on the 37the parallel even with Gadir, Spain. This offers likely the best tie for the word Fara. However we leave it with question marks because we have again, read the note, no definitive track. What we do know is Japheth's territory includes most of North America as it must.

Now he says the Farallon Islands are likely the best fit for Fara. Does he not know that Farallon is Spanish?

The Farallon Islands, or Farallones (from the Spanish farallón meaning "pillar" or "sea cliff"), are a group of islands and sea stacks in the Gulf of the Farallones, off the coast of San Francisco, California, United States. The islands are also sometimes referred to by mariners as the Devil's Teeth Islands, in reference to the many treacherous underwater shoals in their vicinity. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farallon_Islands

Devil's Teeth!? Perhaps Tim would have second thoughts about the Farallon Islands if he knew that factoid. The point here is that whether it's Fairbanks, Alaska or somewhere else Tim is interpreting Fara based upon modern place-names on the West Coast of North America despite acknowledging that it is an ANCIENT REFERENCE. That is the problem.  

Even more problematic is that he admits "we have again, read the note, no definitive track." That means he is just guessing. So everything from America the Beautiful to Old Norse to Fairbanks, Alaska is just stuff he is pulling out of his hat. The fact that he would even consider Fairbanks, Alaska as being Fara is completely laughable and enough to dismiss him outright as a fraud and a hack who has no idea what he is talking about. His interpretation of Jubilees is indeed rubbish!

Let's hear one last word from this video.

25:08 There you have it this is confirmation that Noah indisputably does refer to Alaska.

After enumerating the large islands in Canada and denying that Noah referred to Fairbanks, Alaska Tim now flips the script and says Noah INDISPUTABLY refers to Alaska. Just not, indisputably, Fairbanks, Alaska. But likely.

This is all too stupid. The Book of Jubilees does not refer to Fairbanks, Alaska.  Any one who thinks it does is a clueless hack and has no idea what Jubilees actually teaches. Tim has no idea what he is talking about when it comes to the word "Fara." Remember, this guy is passing himself off as an expert on Philippine and Biblical history who has engaged in deep research on both of those subjects. He even has a forthcoming book about ancient Philippine history.

Ancient

Philippine

History

Gilded in Gold

A Reconstruction of pre-colonial History and Geogprahy from the Beginning

Just imagine what kind of nonsense will be in that book. Tim is very wrong about Philippine history and I will have more about that later. But right here we see his shoddy method at work. It's less than that. It's not even a method. There is no deep research here. It's akin to throwing mud at the wall to see what will stick. Words cannot describe the profound ignorance Tim displays by using a baby name dictionary to interpret Jubilees. This man has zero credibility.

Close on the heels of the absurdities laid out above is Tim's claim that Bengali slang is in the text of Jubilees. It may not be the second worst claim he has made but it's certainly up there. Let's take a brief look.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXK1Z8ZZCCk

18:00 "And it extends toward the west to the sea of 'Atel.' Okay, where are we again? We're in the western edge of Sumatra basically. So to head west what is the sea you run into immediately? It's the Indian Ocean, right? Okay. So we cannot find a reference to the Indian Ocean as the Atel sea. Just can't find it anywhere. It is an ancient reference thus further proving that this book was written long before 200 to 100 BC. So do we head off around the world at this point and try to find something that sounds similar? Why? The word Atel which sounds like the very popular Indian name Patel is actually Bengali meaning a satirical term for intellectual. So it makes perfect sense that the Indian Ocean would have been referred and referenced in more ancient times as Atel sea. More so it is the sea to the west of Sumatra and we do not believe Noah would miss such a large body of water and skip to where some scholars say to the Atlantic.

"The word Atel...is actually Bengali meaning a satirical term for intellectual. So it makes perfect sense that the Indian Ocean would have been referred and referenced in more ancient times as Atel sea."  What he is saying here is that It makes sense that the Indian Ocean used to be referred to in more ancient times as the Atel Sea because Atel is a Bengali word. But why does that make sense exactly? He does not say. He gives no etymology for Atel except to say it's a Bengali word without explaining why it is a Bengali word within the context of Jubilees. He makes the connection to the Indian Ocean without giving an explanation as to why he does so. 

Keep in mind that Tim  also says that he cannot find any reference to the Indian Ocean as the Atel sea. He is once again contradicting himself. If he cannot find such a reference then he cannot know that the Indian Ocean was ever referred to as the Atel Sea. This fact significantly undermines his claim that the Indian Ocean is the Atel Sea.

Furthermore it simply makes no etymological sense that because Atel is Bengali that it makes perfect sense as the name for the Indian Ocean. The definition of this word is very important to figuring out where Noah is mapping. If it is the Atlantic as all the experts say then Tim is 100% wrong in his mapping. But Tim is insistent that it is a perfect linguistic match in Bengali. He makes this connection  twice in his annotated Book of Jubilees.

...sea of ’Atêl as the Indian Ocean which is Bengali in origin thus the Indian Ocean and definitively by the directions...

Book of Jubilees, Timothy Jay Schwab, pg 28

Book of Jubilees, Timothy Jay Schwab, pg. 85

Atel is a "satirical term for intellectual" in Bengali. It is the Indian Ocean LINGUISTICALLY and in the directions.

Tim could not be any clearer. The linguistic connection between "Atel" and "Indian Ocean" is very important to his case. It is not peripheral or secondary. It is germane. When you put it all together the conclusion is inescapable: Noah was using a Bengali slang word to identify the Indian Ocean. If he wasn't then the connection is superfluous. 

Now, as with Fara, Tim is attempting to sweep all this under the table by denying that linguistic connection.

What Territory Belongs to HAM? Answers In Jubilees: Part 3

18:47 ...claiming we say that Noah spoke Bengali essentially. Well we don't 

20:30 The fact that Atel is Bengali is a bonus which connection we do not require but it is neat that it is there and we are researchers who ask such questions to affirm things we already know. We do not say this is the Indian Ocean because Atel is Bengali. That's stupid. We say it is the Indian ocean because that is the sea to the west of Indonesia where we were in the directions. That's it. And it's nice to know that it comes back full circle and ties that Atel is in fact a word in Bengali. Wow!

That is all a jumbled lie. Tim now says that he does not identify the Indian Ocean as Atel because it is a Bengali word but only because of the directions. The fact is he says both. But now he downplays the Bengali connection by saying it is merely "neat." Why is it neat?  Why is it important to make this connection if it's not actually important? 

In Tim's introduction to the Book of Jubilees he writes that the word Atel is Bengali in origin. In this video he contradicts himself by denying that Noah was speaking Bengali or using a Bengali word. But if that is so then the connection between Atel being a Bengali word and the identity of the Indian Ocean is irrelevant. Either Noah used a Bengali word and there is a Bengali word in the text or there is not. If Noah was not using a Bengali word and there is no Bengali word in the text then Tim's exegesis which employs a Bengali word is impertinent and paralogical.

Funnily enough in this tirade Tim reveals his ethos as a researcher: "...we are researchers who ask such questions to affirm things we already know." Researchers do not ask questions to affirm what they already know. They ask questions to find out the truth of a matter. If Tim is doing research to affirm what he already knows that is called confirmation bias. Again Tim shows us all he is not a real researcher engaged in honest research. He is a parviscient fraud and a hack who used a baby name dictionary to interpret the book of Jubilees and who says he is only looking to affirm what he already knows.

While he is denying the essential linguistic connection between Atel and Bengali with the identification of the Indian Ocean is he aware of what's on the map in his video just underneath Australia?

Atel is a "satirical term for intellectual" in Bengali. It is the Indian Ocean LINGUISTICALLY and in the directions.

His very own map contradicts everything he is saying. Folks, you cannot make up this kind of stupidity. 

Tim has now deleted the videos referred to in this article. 

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLru2qbCMGOi7FQ7HiGJcODyJEoBP7-0Md

As you can see Flood Series videos 3 and 4 are now missing from this play list. Tim has replaced them with his Answers in Jubilees videos. He says he is simply updating maps but what he is really doing is deleting evidence of his past false teachings. I downloaded a copy for posterity and thankfully a God Culture fan has uploaded it on his channel. If you want to watch go to this link. 

Concerning the deleting of these videos Tim posted the following on Facebook:

Just letting everyone know as we updated and freshened our graphics with new high resolution, professional-quality maps (oh no, you are not allowed to do that are you?) and more detail for Noah's Division matching our recent publishing of The Book of Jubilees: The Torah Calendar where we invested in incredible maps, you will find in place of Parts 3&4 of the Flood Series in the playlist, new videos of Shem's Division just released as well as Ham's from the latest Answers In Jubilees and Japheth's is already there too but will go live next week. When we update such maps, we don't leave the old ones which serve no purpose for idiots to ridicule who can't even read a map in the first place

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=733353473891339&id=376627072897316

It's simply more deception from The God Culture. They are not merely updating maps. With the deletion of these videos they get rid of teachings as well as discussion in the comments and they reduce their view count. The new map isn't even accurate like the old one is. The new map is a cartoon while the old map was a projection of the earth as it is onto a flat surface. There was a lot of information in that video besides simply mapping out Noah's division to Ham and Japheth. Now Timothy has deleted all of that. 

These new videos are also now labelled as part of 3 different series: Answers in Jubilees, The Flood Series, and 100 Clues. That makes for jumbled playlists and a lot of clutter and overlap. In fact several old videos have now been rebranded to be part of the 100 Clues series. It's more than a little lazy for Tim to retroactively add videos to a series he has basically abandoned, 100 Clues. It is also very disorganized as now several videos are on several different playlists.

It is also a great disservice to his audience. Just read this comment from a new viewer who is looking for Flood Series videos 3 and 4 which Tim mentions in his other videos but has now deleted.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrqCzFOnUmg&lc=Ugw8Ip8ezUyGSAZ_tVx4AaABAg

I would like to thank you for these videos that are meticulously compiled complete with the relevant supporting evidences. These are excellent videos. However I like to make a suggestion to make the viewing of such videos more meaningful. For someone new to this videos, it would be good if you could provide a road map of where to start and proceed. For example, I started with the Revelation series as I happened to chanced upon one of them while doing a video search. It then led me to the Solomon Gold series. Somewhere in the Solomon Gold series it was suggested we see for videos 1 and 2 of the Flood Series which I did. As I proceeded on with the Solomon Gold series, I was asked to see videos 3 and 4 of Flood Series. I did find 3B but could not find 3A as I assumed there should be one. Anyways, my suggestion is that is it possible to provide a road map to all your videos as a guide to which videos should be watched first and how they are logically sequenced? You have hundreds of videos and I would love to go through them. A road map to the logical sequence to view this would be great ... Just a suggestion :)

This guy was watching Tim's videos and following his recommendations to watch certain other videos. But now two of those videos have been deleted leaving this guy wondering what's happening. This is a prime example of why Tim should not have deleted his videos. 

It's not that one cannot grow in their understanding and abandon false teachings. However that is not what Timothy is actually doing. The importance of this video is that it shows Tim had no idea and still has no idea what he is talking about when it comes to the Book of Jubilees. For goodness sake he used a baby name dictionary to interpret that ancient text! And he dares to call me a fool?

P.S.  I am not going to rewrite any of the above but I want to clarify that Timothy has now undeleted the videos for Flood Series 3 and 4. The thing is though they are currently UNLISTED which means you cannot search for them and you won't see them in his list of videos.

Since the videos are unlisted they are unsearchable and invisible which makes them as good as deleted. Perhaps he will rectify this situation in the future.

The God Culture: Daniel Was Never In Susa and the Hiddekel River is Not an Undersea Ocean Trench

Crucial to Timothy Jay Schwab of The God Culture's claim that the Garden of Eden is in the Philippines beneath the Sulu Sea is the theory he has devised to locate the Rivers of Eden. That would be the Pison, Gihon, Euphrates (Parat), and Hiddekel rivers. He claims that they are actually trenches lying deep beneath the ocean, criss-crossing the earth. Find the rivers and you find the Garden, he says. 

Tim reiterates in his book "The Search for King Solomon's Treasure" that this is just a theory but he also says no one has proved him wrong and if you listen to his videos he is very adamant that no other theory fits for finding these rivers. The fact is Tim has not proven these ocean trenches are the Rivers of Eden nor has he proven the Garden of Eden is beneath the Sulu Sea. He has merely laid out a theory. He has also not put it to the test. It would be impossible to carry out such a test as regards the Rivers but finding the Garden of Eden should be rather easy to do utilizing satellite technology and deep sea exploration. James Cameron's Deepsea Challenger could easily Terminate Tim's theory by taking a peek around Tubbatha Reef which is where Tim says the Garden of Eden is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhPm7N9ne8Q

34:01 The only resistance we we have ever seen to this in fact is mere ridicule not logic as one has to abandon such to deviate from common sense to go against this.

34:36 So, there you go. The Garden of Eden is just below the Philippines under the Sulu Sea.

I don't know if Tim is referring to me here specifically but I assume he is and take umbrage at it. While I have ruthlessly ridiculed and mocked his theory that Enoch is alive and well in the Garden of Eden underneath the Sulu Sea (cue Octopus's Garden) I have also logically banged Tim over the head with Maxwell's Silver Hammer and shown how his theory, and everything else he says, fails any test of logic. There is no mere childish illiterate ridicule in these articles but a systemic destruction of Tim's false teachings. Tim simply ignores how I have dismantled his case piecemeal and has resorted to filing an outrageous libel case against me instead of refuting anything I have written. Imagine going to prison for doing what Tim tells his listeners to do which is to "Test all things." That's how scared he is of me and how disingenuous he is as a thinker. Imagine being an American and prosecuting someone for the inalienable right of free speech. Tim would make a good Filipino. 

Attempting to argue with Tim on this matter point-by-point is a fruitless endeavor. The problem is that he holds to many aberrant presuppositions which influence his world view. His Rivers of Eden theory rests on the presupposition that there was no world ocean at the time of creation. Instead there were large lakes and large seas like the Black Sea. He believes this because 2 Esdras 6:42 says that at the creation the earth was only 1/7th water. He believes that 2 Esdras is scripture because it was found in Qumran but apparently he is ignorant that the 2 Esdras found in Qumran was Nehemiah as Ezra-Nehemiah are known as 1-2 Esdras. What Tim refers to as 2 Esdras is actually an apocryphal book written after the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D. It simply is not scripture even by his standards.

It is a rather preposterous assumption that there was no world ocean before the flood. This theory does not take into account the abundant marine life that exists on this planet. It does not take into account the division of freshwater and saline water marine life. It does not take into account the amount of marine life living near the bottom of the ocean in the darkest waters and under the most intense pressure. No ocean means no deepsea species. Many marine species are quite large and require, not mere lakes or large seas, but the entire room of the ocean in order to thrive. 

Timothy Jay Schwab's Rivers From Eden map

We can cut the Gordian Knot quite cleanly and dismiss his theory with two facts. Tim cannot and has not demonstrated his theory and his theory does not account for the type of marine life we find living in the oceans. There is no need to go point-by-point through his videos and books to "disprove" him.  Let us not confuse proof with the workings of a theory, especially a theory which cannot be tested.

I could also go on and on about tectonic plates and how the trenches delineate those plates as well as the depth of the trenches and that no one even knew about them until recently and all kinds of other scientific facts about these ocean trenches which contradict Tim's theory that they are essentially rivers not much different from the Nile, Amazon, or Mississippi. But I will not. It is much better to counter Tim with the inconsistencies within his own paradigm rather than using an evidentialist approach by appealing to indisputable and accepted facts which he a priori rejects. The best one can do is to cast reasonable doubt on his theory with the two facts just stated which are the theory's unfalsifiability and the fact that it does not account for the abundant and unique marine life which requires large bodies of saline water to thrive. 

Tim's own map is very explicit that his Rivers From Eden theory is just that, a theory.

Another problem with this theory is that it makes the Bible and even the Book of Jubilees, which Tim considers to be scripture, unintelligible. In Genesis and Jubilees the authors mention the Rivers of Eden in a manner which indicates the readers would be familiar with the location of those rivers. If they are underwater ocean trenches invisible to the eye then the description of them is incomprehensible. Genesis and Jubilees were written to the nation of Israel thousands of years ago. How would Israelites know anything about deep sea ocean trenches? They would not. So that's really three facts and not just two which sufficiently relegate this theory to the dung heap. Like all of Tim's other outlandish, unscientific, and anti-Christian teachings his Rivers of Eden theory is complete rubbish.

One of these rivers, the Hiddekel, is also known to history as the Tigris. Daniel claims to have been walking near the Hiddekel or Tigris river when he had a vision.  Tim says it is impossible Daniel was walking near the Tigris because at that time he was far away in Iran. It is this claim I want to analyze in this article. Was Daniel ever in Susa, Iran? The answer is yes and no.

On page 286 of his book, The Search for King Solomon's Treasure, Tim writes:

By the 8th chapter of Daniel, Daniel is still at the King of Babylon's service as he was brought to the palace to interpret the handwriting on the wall just before this. However, King Belshazzar would be the last king of Babylon and he would soon be killed. Daniel in chapter 8 though is at Susa or Sushan, Iran in Persia. He was by the River Ulai for the vision which is no where near the Tigris River nor did he live near the Tigris when in Babylon.

Daniel 8:1-2 KJV

In the third year of the reign of king Belshazzar a vision appeared unto me, even unto me Daniel, after that which appeared unto me at the first. And I saw in a vision; and it came to pass, when I saw, that I was at Shushan in the palace, which is in the province of Elam; and I saw in a vision, and I was by the river of Ulai.

In chapter 9, Babylon had been defeated and Daniel was still in Susa, Iran in the Palace of Darius the Persian King. There was a complete power shift prior to that as Babylon is conquered.

Daniel 9:1 KJV

In the first year of Darius the son of Ahaserus, of the seed of the Medes, which was made king over the realm of the Chaldeans;

Now, you can see the progression of where Daniel lived leading up to his dream in which he invoked Hiddikel River the only other time is is used in scripture.

Let's stop here and take a look and what Tim is saying. He says by chapter 8 Daniel is still in the service of Belshazzar the King of Babylon. We know this because just a few chapters before he was called in to read the writing on the wall. Tim then says the king would soon be killed and that Daniel is not in Babylon but in Persia. Then he says in chapter 9 Babylon had been defeated and Daniel remained in Susa in the Palace of Darius the Perisan King.

None of that is true. It should be kept in mind that Daniel is not in chronological order. Belshazzar was killed and Babylon conquered immediately after Daniel read the writing on the wall, the same night in fact. There was no reprieve for Belshazzar. Chapter 5 has the writing on the wall, the defeat of Belshazzar, and the installation of Darius the Median as king. Chapter 6 discusses the rule of Darius, chapter 7 goes back to the first year of Belshazzar's reign, 8 continues the reign of Belshazzar, and finally we jump forward to Darius the Mede in chapter 9. The chronological order of the chapters is 1-2-3-4-7-8-5-9-11-12-6-10. 

There is no need to get into a discussion about why the chapters are out of order or the languages of each chapter which vary from Hebrew to Aramaic. The point is chapter 8 comes before chapter 5, when Belshazzar is killed. Therefore Daniel was not and could not have been in Perisa during the events of that chapter. He remained in Babylon in chapter 8 which is from where Belshazzar ruled. Daniel's being in Sushan was wholly in a vision.  That is what the text says. 

And I saw in a vision; and it came to pass, when I saw, that I was at Shushan in the palace,

There is also no need to discuss the mysterious and unknown identity of Darius the Mede. And it is Darius the Mede not Darius the Persian. The name is in the text. How did Tim overlook that? Darius the Perisan succeeded King Cyrus. In 521 BC it was he who moved the capitol to Susa where he built a large palace. Daniel was never in Iran during the reigns of Belshazzar and Cyrus.

Right here we see multiple goofs from Tim as he attempts to interpret the book of Daniel. He confuses the timeline because he does not realize that Daniel is not in chronological order. There are many more goofs ahead. Let's move on to the section about King Cyrus.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrus_the_Great

Years have passed and Cyrus the Great is now King of Persia. Daniel's vision occurs in Iran.

Daniel 10:1-5 KJV

In the third year of Cyrus king of Persia a thing was revealed unto Daniel, whose name was called Belteshazzar; and the thing was true, but the time appointed was long: and he understood the thing, and had understanding of the vision. In those days I Daniel was mourning three full weeks. I ate no pleasant bread, neither came flesh nor wine in my mouth, neither did I anoint myself at all, till three whole weeks were fulfilled. And in the four and twentieth day of the first month, as I was by the side of the great river, which is Hiddekel; Then I lifted up mine eyes, and looked, and behold a certain man clothed in linen, whose loins were girded with fine gold of Uphaz:

Daniel was in Susa, Iran where he is even recorded as expiring near the Persian Gulf on the Iranian side near the River Ulai which is mentioned by name before yet he invokes the Great River Hiddikel. Great River? He is referring to the River From Eden indeed but that is not located in Assyria but East of Assyria at this point. Daniel is right next to the Persian Gulf in Iran not Babylon not Assyria at this point. The Trench system on the bottom of the Indian Ocean East of Assyria runs right up to the Persian Gulf. 

You can see the massive Mid-Ocean Ridge here which connects with the Trenches around the Indian Ocean leading to the Persian Gulf especially. Daniel literally meant he was next to the original Hiddikel River which was on the bottom of the ocean floor right in front of him.

Again, this is more nonsense. Chronologically, yes, a few years had passed as this is the last chapter of Daniel when correctly ordered. But saying Daniel was in Susa is totally wrong because it was Cyrus who defeated Belshazzar and conquered Babylon in 539. Again, there is no reason to discuss Darius the Mede. Attempting to discover who this man really was lies beyond the scope of this article. The book of Daniel indicates he did not live past Cyrus' third year which would be 536. By then Daniel was a very old man, almost a centenarian.

Cyrus did not rule from Susa. He ruled from Babylon. In fact he was so busy fighting that he did not have time to stay in one place and consolidate his kingdom. He died in 530 and then his son Cambyses ruled the Persian kingdom until 522. It was then that Darius ascended to the throne which he moved to Susa in 521 where he also built a great palace and many other works. That means Daniel did not go to Susa. How could he? He was dead long before Darius took the throne and removed it from Babylon. 

But there is no need to dive deep into history. Once again the Gordian Knot is cut and Tim's claim is dismissed very easily. Let's pretend Daniel was in Susa as Tim teaches.

Susa on Google maps

The red dot is Susa. It is a three to four hour drive to get to the Persian Gulf. One commentary has this to say:

The introduction further specifies that the setting for this vision is the citadel of Susa in the province of Elam in the proximity of the Ulai Canal (v.2). The city of Susa (Heb. šûšan, but called “Susa” by the Greeks) was situated some 220 miles east of Babylon and 150 miles north of the Persian Gulf. 

The Expositor's Bible commentary, vol. 8, Daniel-Malachi

Cleary Susa is a great distance away from the Persian Gulf. Yet Tim says that being in Susa, Daniel was "right next to the Persian Gulf."

Daniel is right next to the Persian Gulf in Iran not Babylon not Assyria at this point. Daniel literally meant he was next to the original Hiddikel River which was on the bottom of the ocean floor right in front of him.

In his video Did the Book of Sirach Find the Rivers From Eden? he repeats this same claim as he wrests the poetry of Ecclesiasticus 24 in a vain attempt to prove that Sirach was speaking of the Rivers of Eden as being undersea ocean trenches.

17:33 So he was living on the gulf coast on the Iranian side again nowhere near the Tigris river.

If Daniel was in Susa he was 150 miles north of the Perisan Gulf and not "living on the gulf coast." Thus, Timothy Jay Schwab is wrong. He has completely mangled the book of Daniel in order to promote his absurd theory that the Rivers of Eden are undersea trenches and that the Garden of Eden is in the Philippines underneath the Sulu Sea. This is the verse as Tim reads it:

And in the four and twentieth day of the first month, as I was by the side of the great undersea ocean trench, which is Hiddekel

Now the verse is incoherent and meaningless. Instead of simply reading the text as it is Tim interprets it in a way that no one can understand what Daniel is saying. If the Rivers of Eden are invisible, undersea ocean trenches then it makes no sense to talk about these Rivers by name or as rivers. Rivers visibly mark boundaries and territories on the surface of the earth. Undersea ocean trenches do not. Daniel is giving a specific location as he is confident his readers know where the Hiddekel is.

To be as thorough as I can here in debunking Tim's claim let's look at Tim's original Rivers From Eden video. In that video he has the Hiddekel way out in the middle of the Indian Ocean.

Rivers & Garden Of Eden FOUND! The Best Theory. Fits the Bible. Flood Series 6A. Ophir

44:57 ...Daniel was far more likely in Persia overlooking the ocean right where there is the ancient trench system in the middle of the Indian Ocean.

If Daniel was in Susa he would not have been able to look towards the middle of the Indian Ocean. Daniel says, "I was by the side of the great river, which is Hiddekel." If he really means he was looking out towards the middle of the Indian Ocean at an invisible deep sea trench then his statement becomes nonsense. This also contradicts what Tim writes in his book:

Daniel literally meant he was next to the original Hiddikel River which was on the bottom of the ocean floor right in front of him.

The middle of the Indian Ocean would not be "right in front of him." But we can perhaps explain this contradiction by making an allowance for a progression of ideas. You see, Tim's theory is ever evolving. In his video where he responds to the Ophirian Heritage Conservatory he says this:

Is The TIGRIS River the HIDDEKEL? Part2 Rivers From Eden. Flood Series 6B

32:50 A closer look at the trenches in that area which make up this ancient Hiddekel River which were all connected before the flood which are functional to this day with hydrothermal vents that are balancing the salinity of the ocean as well as heating the great deep keeping our entire ecosystem going still functioning. But it travels all the way up into the Persian Gulf in fact. Yep right where Daniel was when he had his vision close to Susa. It is likely Daniel enjoyed more freedom in Persia than in Babylon. Especially when Cyrus built a new palace up north in Ecbatana Media as well and Daniel it appears remained in Susa. He was on the shore of the Indian Ocean when he saw his vision and there are several nice beaches there even on the banks of the Hiddekel River, the ancient river which is now covered by the ocean and positioned on the bottom of the ocean floor.

Now Tim places Daniel on the shore of the Indian Ocean when he had a vision in Susa. Which is it? Was he in Susa? Was he on the banks of the Persian Gulf? Or was Daniel on the shore of the Indian Ocean?  How would he even get to the shore of the Indian Ocean? The answer is simple. He was in Babylon on the banks of the Hiddekel as the text says. Tim is wrong and the fact that he cannot get the location of Daniel right but contradicts himself three times just shows he is hopelessly confused.

To strengthen his claim that Daniel was in Susa Tim mentions that there are traditions that Daniel died there and his tomb is there. Actually several places are competing for the honor of being Daniel's final resting place. The Jewish Encyclopedia has a strange legend about Daniel's remains in Susa.

Benjamin of Tudela, who visited the Holy Land about 1160 C.E., gives much more accurate information in his account of Susa. In the façade of one of its many synagogues he was shown the tomb assigned by tradition to Daniel.

Benjamin declares, however, that the tomb does not hold Daniel's remains, which were said to have been discovered at Susa about (640 C.E. The remains were supposed to bring good fortune: and bitter quarrels arose because of them between the inhabitants of the two banks of the Choaspes. All those living on the side on which Daniel's grave was situated were rich and happy, while those on the opposite side were poor and in want; the latter, therefore, wished the bier of Daniel transferred to their side of the river. They finally agreed that the bier should rest alternately one year on each side. This agreement was carried out for many years, until the Persian shah Sanjar, on visiting the city, stopped the practise, holding that the continual removal of the bier was disrespectful to the prophet. He ordered the bier to be fastened with chains to the bridge, directly in the middle of the structure; and he erected a chapel on the spot for both Jews and non-Jews. The king also forbade fishing in the river within a mile of Daniel's bier.

https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/4872-daniel-tomb-of

According to this tradition the remains of Daniel were found in Susa 900 years after he died. How they got there or whether he actually died in Susa is not said. The bones worked miracles granting either riches or poverty causing two towns on opposite ides of the Choaspes River to fued over Daniel's remains. The Shah eventually put an end to this conflict by fastening Daniel's bier to a bridge and building a tomb. Daniel's remains are not in the tomb.

What sober person would believe such unbelievable flights of fancy about bones working miracles? Yes I am aware it happens once in the Bible with the bones of Elisha. But this is hardly the same thing. The location of Daniel's final resting place is not even in the tomb at Susa. Wherever his remains lie does not matter to our query, "Did Daniel visit Susa?" The answer to that is yes he did but in a vision, not physically. 

One could go a lot deeper into this issue as in his videos Tim whips out the Hebrew and compares the word for "this river" with that for "Hiddekel" in order to prove the Hiddekel is not the Tigris. There is no need to go there. What I have written here is enough to show that Tim has no idea what is going on in Daniel and it is enough to cast doubt on his theory. In the context of the Book of Daniel the Hiddekel River does not indicate an undersea ocean trench in the Persian Gulf or in the middle of the Indian Ocean. I will however note that nahar is a general word for river used 120 times in the Bible and applied to many rivers not just the Tigris while nehar occurs only 15 times and is the Aramaic equivalent of the Hebrew nahar. Thus both of those words are generic terms for a river and not proper names for any specific river. That fact renders Tim's word study about "this river" as so much meaningless hot air.

Let's wrap this up.

Tim claims the Hiddekel River is an undersea ocean trench. Because of this he says Daniel's mention of the Hiddekel cannot be the Tigris as many other commentators affirm. He then interprets the Book of Daniel to prove that when Daniel wrote he was near the Hiddekel River he was actually in Susa, Iran literally standing right next to the Perisan Gulf and the undersea ocean trench which is the true Hiddekel River. Or else he was on the shore of the Indian Ocean peering out into the middle of that great body of water where the Hiddekel River lies buried, invisible to man's eyes.

All of that is wrong. Tim does not take into account that Daniel is not in chronological order and does not interpret Daniel's vision of being in Susa correctly. Instead of a vision Tim thinks he was actually there. The book of Daniel never tells us that Daniel was really in Susa expect for in a vision. When Daniel mentions the Hiddekel River he was still in Babylon which was under the rule of Cyrus who never reigned from Susa. Even if he were in Susa he would have been 150 miles north of the Persian Gulf and any undersea ocean trench. Therefore whatever the Hiddekel River is it must be located near Babylon. The only candidates are the Tigris or the Euphrates not an invisible undersea ocean trench.

Lest Tim object that the Tigris is too far away, that appears to not be the case.

At that time, Babylon seems to have been a minor city or perhaps a large port town on the Euphrates River at the point where it runs closest to the river Tigris.

https://www.ancient.eu/babylon/

Even Herodotus writes that the Tigris was easily accessible from Babylon.

For the whole Babylonian territory like the Egyptian is cut up into channels, and the largest of the channels is navigable for ships and runs in the direction of the sunrising in winter from the Euphrates to another river, namely the Tigris, along the bank of which lay the city of Nineveh

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/2707/2707-h/2707-h.htm#linknoteref-198

Daniel does not tell us how he got to the side of the Hiddekel River but if it was the Tigris he could have gotten there rather easily from Babylon. One thing is for sure, Daniel was not on the Perisan Gulf coast in Iran nor on the shore of the Indian Ocean when he mentions the Hiddekel River. Nor did he ever live in Susa. Timothy Jay Schwab of The God Culture is wrong.