The God Culture: 100 Lies About the Philippines: Lie #23: The La Paz Sand Dunes is the Desert of Chabor

Welcome back to 100 Lies the God Culture Teaches About the Philippines. Today's lie once more concerns Tim's claims about Abraham Farissol. In his book Iggeret Orhot Olam Farissol says that the Lost Tribes of Israel live in the Desert of Chabor. Tim claims that is the La Paz Sand Dunes in Northern Luzon. As we shall see this is just one more lie from Timothy Jay Schwab.

In his videos Tim says the following:

Lost Tribes Series Part 2G: The Landing of the 2nd Exodus In Ophir, Philippines

18:07 Remember our historic reference from the Italian Jewish scholar Peritsol or Farissol. Notice he's a Pharisee, a Persian, and the P is an F sound as well. That's Persian, but we'll get there. We had set aside this reference though for this video and now it's time. "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," we covered that, "without houses" bayanihan, right? "Sowing or the use of wine. Nay, he enters the Indies the aisles of Bengala the Philippines and several other places." The Hebrew word Chabor means to unite, be joined, to tie a magic knot or spell. This isn't about magic, obviously, this is the Lost Tribes. To charm. No, this isn't about magic. So, unite or be joined. Compact, couple together, have fellowship with, heap up, join self together, league. A rather generic reference and no we do not find a desert called Chabor anywhere in Asia. 

Wait a minute I live in the Philippines and I have never seen any desert here, right? Some may be thinking that. Well, actually this is what makes this one so simple because there is only but one desert in the entire Philippines. Do you know where it is? 

Near the northernmost tip of Luzon Island the largest island is the only desert in the Philippines by definition. The La Paz Sand Dunes is an 85 square kilometer, 33 square mile, protected sandy coastal desert and beach located in Laoag, Ilocos Norte in the Philippines. Now this is Wikipedia's definition as a desert, not ours. It doesn't just look like a desert though it is by definition and it is the only one we can find in the whole of the Philippines. Oh, and would you look? La Paz is two Hebrew words. If you are headed to ancient Ophir what is the first thing you expect to see when you come from Israel originally? That's right Gold but there was no gold in the desert was there? And thus in Hebrew La Paz means "no gold." 

These same claims also appear in Tim's book The Search for King Solomon's Treasure.

The Search for King Solomon's Treasure, pg 128

In fact, there is only one desert in the Philippines which is the Paoay- LaPaz Sand Dunes in Laoag on Luzon and that is “a further country, where never mankind dwelt.” 

Everything Tim has to say about the matter is completely wrong. 

First of all there are no deserts in the Philippines. The La Paz Sand Dunes are by no means a desert. They are simply dunes. A desert is defined as follows:

A desert is a region of land that is very dry because it receives low amounts of precipitation (usually in the form of rain, but it may be snow, mist or fog), often has little coverage by plants, and in which streams dry up unless they are supplied by water from outside the area. Deserts generally receive less than 250 mm (10 in) of precipitation each year.

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

The La Paz Sand Dunes are in Laoag which receives an average of 85 inches of rain per year. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laoag#Climate

Does the La Paz Sand Dunes somewhow avoid all that rain? Of course not. That is by no means or any definition a desert. Colloquially one might call the dunes a desert because they are a large sandy area but they really are not a desert. A dune is defined as follows.

A dune is a landform composed of wind- or water-driven sand. It typically takes the form of a mound, ridge, or hill. An area with dunes is called a dune system or a dune complex. A large dune complex is called a dune field. while broad, flat regions covered with wind-swept sand or dunes with little or no vegetation are called ergs or sand seas.

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

There is a huge difference between dunes and a desert. 

Second of all Tim is not reading the words of Farissol but those of Thomas Stackhouse. If he had bothered to read Farissol's words Tim would know that he places the Desert of Chabor in Arabia. In chapter 14 of Farissol's book we read the following. 

One of the chief advantages of this treatise, which I, Abraham Peritsol, have compiled for the instruction of such as are unacquainted with the science of cosmography, will be found, in that I have determined to devote this chapter to a relation of the journeyings of a Jew of the tribes, or of Judah, called David ben Shelomoh, “Captain of the host of Israel,” who came to this our country of Italy, where we ourselves have seen him. He came, according to his own assertions, from the Desert of Chabor. Those who read concerning him, will find that which will delight their souls, and those who have a desire (to learn something relative to the ten tribes of Israel), will receive this account with much satisfaction; for I will not err in narrating what I have received from honourable men, and seen in the writings of creditable persons. He who alone is true, knows my veracity, and that I am a person who gives but little credence to vanities.

The Occident and Jewish American Advocate, April 1849, pgs. 37-40 

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. Living between these two sections of the Jewish people, however, there is a strong and mighty people who are followers of Mahomet. These, with their numerous kings, render a communication among the Jews exceedingly dangerous, and they will not permit one party to approach the other. 

Many years had they been thus widely separated, endeavouring to approach each other, but finding it impossible to do so, when they were apprised of the arrival of some Christian ships of very large and mighty proportions. They also heard, and, indeed, saw, that the Christians had in their hands certain hollow metal instruments of war designed to throw stones by means of fire, and which could destroy any fortress or village. Whereupon, the Jews of Mount Chabor, according to his statement, determined upon sending him to the great king of all the Christians, with the credentials then in  his possession, as before stated, in order to authenticate his assertions. These credentials were confirmed by the king of Portugal who then navigated the regions of the Hodiyim (or Indies), and who knew of the existence of a Jewish community there. He also wrote to the Pope, (whose glory be exalted,) that the above mentioned Jew was worthy of credit, as were also his declarations. But be this Jew what he may, and be his words true or false, it is sufficient for us, in our captivity and in our dispersions (to know), that the existence of the ten tribes was acknowledged by kings, by princes, and by many influential persons in Rome—that Ephraim existed, even then—a numerous people with their rulers; be this Jew, who came to us, who and what he may.

Since the existence of these Israelites and their kings has been thus acknowledged; we may be permitted to state, that this Jew came by the way and in the manner following : From the desert of Chabor he journeyed with a caravan, which is the usual mode of travelling in these places. This was heard from his own lips and so recorded. Passing through Arabia Felix, he arrived at the Red Sea descended into Egypt, thence journeyed to the Holy Land, where he awaited the arrival of a ship from Venice, by which he might proceed to Italy. He reached Rome, and resided there about eight months, until the reply of the king of Portugal had been received,which authenticated his mission.

The Occident and Jewish American Advocate, June 1849, pgs. 129-134

Farissol says this Jew, David ben Shelomoh, came to visit Italy from the Desert of Chabor. Beneath that desert is Mecca and Jeddah. Therefore this desert is in the Arabian Peninsula. Further witness for this can be gleaned from The Travels of Benjamin of Tudela. While traveling across Arabia visiting the Jews he writes:

From Tilinas to Kheibar it is three days' journey. People say that the men of Kheibar belong to the tribes of Reuben, Gad, and Manasseh, whom Shalmaneser, king of Assyria. led hither into captivity. They have built strongly fortified cities, and make war upon all other kingdoms. No man can readily reach their territory, because it is a march of eighteen days' journey through the desert, which is altogether uninhabited, so that no one can enter the land. 

Kheibar is a very large city with 50,000 Jews.

The Itinerary of Benjamin of Tudela, pg. 48

The note on Kheibar reads as follows:

R. Abraham Farissol, who flourished at the beginning of the sixteenth century, writes that there was a large number of Jews in the district, who lived in tents and in wooden houses or huts. His contemporary, David Reubeni, who crossed from Arabia to Abyssinia and came to Europe in 1524, pretended to be brother of Joseph, king of the tribes of Reuben, Gad, and half-Manasseh in the desert of Chabor (Kheibar). Benjamin takes care to qualify his statement as to the origin of the Jews of Kheibar by adding "people say they belong to the tribes of Reuben, Gad, and the half-tribe of Manasseh, whom Salmanesser, King of Assyria, led hither into captivity." 

The Itinerary of Benjamin of Tudela, pg. 49

This David Reubeni is the same as David ben Shelomoh. Farissol later refers to him as R. David in chapter 14 of his book. The Desert of Chabor is that of Kheibar or Khaybar. Historically there has been a large Jewish population in Khaybar. 

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

Third of all Tim's Hebrew etymology of Chabor is so ridiculous as to not warrant comment especially now it has been established that the Desert of Chabor is in Arabia. Since Farissol's book is available in the original Hebrew it must be asked if Tim bothered to check what Hebrew word he actually used. Of course he did not do this because he is on record saying this book is lost to history.  

https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_oBqOAecJ4vcC/page/n107/mode/2up

Compare that with Strongs H2266.

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/h2266/kjv/wlc/0-1/

Fourth of all the Hebrew word Paz means refined gold as Tim even acknowledges on screen in his video. 

Why would anyone expect to find refined gold lying about? If Tim's story was true the lost tribes would have used the word "zahab" because zahab means regular, plain unrefined gold like one would find in a raw state. 

https://biblehub.com/hebrew/2091.htm

This story is shown to be preposterous by the fact that several places in the Philippines are named La Paz. The capitol of Bolivia is also named La Paz. La paz is Spanish for "peace."

As I noted in the previous article about Tim's claims concerning Abraham Farissol all these errors could be avoided if Tim had only read Farissol's actual words. The fact that he did not do so coupled with the fact that he falsely claims Farissol's book is lost to history simply exposes his ignorance and proves beyond a doubt Timothy Jay Schwab is a very poor researcher and The God Culture is no team.

The God Culture: Apocrypha Scrolls Found In Qumran And Those Not Present. Vol. 1

Timothy Jay Schwab of The God Culture has released another book. This is volume one of a two volume series "testing" the apocryphal books. This book is part of his project to rewrite what he calls "the Pharisee Bible" and "restore the true Bible." It's a lot of Godless, Christless, faithless nonsense and quite frankly there is so much written about these books we really do not need the ridiculous armchair ravings of a magazine editor who knows neither Greek nor Hebrew except from what he gleans on the internet to tell us about them! Let's take a look anyway.

Apocrypha Scrolls Found In Qumran And Those Not Present. Vol. 1

Thankfully this book does not insert the Philippines where it does not belong but it does follow the pattern of Tim's other editions of Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha (Enoch, Jubilees, and 1st and 2nd Esdras.) He begins his "foreward" by dumping all over scholars of ever stripe. This tirade continues all throughout Tim's introductory materials. Here is one of many examples. 

For those scholars requiring that Pharisee to tell the truth in quoting Baruch, perhaps someday they will mature to elementary levels where we could allow them to participate in discussion. For now, many undermine their own credibility.

pg. 81

Next there is a long section about who really lived in Qumran followed by a "Torah Test" for the books in this volume. That would be The Wisdom of Sirach, The Prayer of Manasseh, Baruch including the Letter of Jeremiah, and additional proof for 1st and 2nd Esdras being found in Qumran. 

His interpretation of the material is tedious and longwinded and I will not attempt to unravel them.  Funny enough Bigfoot makes an appearance for his "case!"

Another text by perhaps the brother, mentioned a creature akin to Big Foot thus, that must be discredited because modern scholars cannot capture and prove there is such a creature. Again, that is their paradigm and their shortcoming they then, apply to everyone else in a false paradigm blocking knowledge. That is as Pharisee as any behavior could be. They would ignore even former President Teddy Roosevelt as not academic enough nor credible enough for them when he wrote of an account of a Big Foot-like creature in Idaho and Montana in The Wilderness Hunter published in 1893. Another scholar would pile on in consensus noting that there were no known Big Foot legends in that area in 1850 but not until 1912.

In other words, that scholar would be claiming this could not be the first legend because other scholars already decreed the 1912 was the first. Do they even know that? No. Did Big Foot, or whatever creature this may have been mistaken, come into existence in 1912? Would not the very fact that it is reported in that area in 1912 prove this family history credible whether it was Big Foot himself or not? How could one call themselves academic and even think that way? They do.

pg. 47-48

Yes dear readers. Big Foot is real!!  Tim writes in these ridiculous terms because he despises academia and is appealing to the lowest common denominator.

This is why we are publishing this series in layman’s terms as we have had enough of the so-called academic rhetoric that surrounds the Dead Sea Scrolls, and really the entire Bible.  

pg. 50

That is what we are up against here folks. 

In this review I will focus on several huge errors Tim makes that shows he is totally unreliable as a "scholar." Of course that is always the case with Tim. He sounds like he knows what he is talking about but when one washes away the mud his deceit is made plain.

The first major error, and the one that shuts down his entire project, is that the only test of what is true scripture is what was found or not found at Qumran. If it was found amongst the Dead Sea Scrolls it is scripture, if it was not found then it is not scripture.

We will determine which of these was and still is Bible Canon and which should not be. We will use the Qumran Scrolls as a framework as well as establish historicity continued from there to the Early Church. 

pg. 13

The first and sole true judge of historicity is whether or not a text was found affirmed in the Dead Sea Scrolls where the Temple Priests were who kept the only official Bible Canon to the First Century. 

pg. 68

This is problematic on many levels and not just because it eliminates the New Testament which was not found amongst the Dead Sea Scrolls. I will let Bible scholar Lee McDonald speak.

What was discovered in and around Qumran cannot be affirmed to be a complete library of what was actually stored there, for the residents made no list of what they stored, and we do not know if one day another cave will be discovered with many more ancient manuscripts. Therefore, a certain amount of caution is necessary before making strong statements about the contents of the Qumran library. And because of this uncertainty, it is wise to soften conclusions about what was not found there.

Lee Martin McDonald, The Biblical Canon, pg. 131

“There is no way to know with certainty whether either collection in 4 Ezra included Ruth, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, Ecclesiastes, or Song of Songs, the books more commonly disputed in the rabbinic tradition. Also, it is not certain that Wisdom of Solomon and Sirach were excluded. One should be very careful about attributing to 4 Ezra a definition of canon that cannot be established. Nothing prior to the second century C.E. identifies which books made up the sacred writings in the various sects of Judaism at the turn of the era. It is possible to hazard a guess of the identity of some of the books in the emerging biblical canon by observing the way that various writings were cited at Qumran or by Josephus, but what specific books were in these categories is debatable.”

Lee Martin McDonald, The Biblical Canon, pg. 163

There was no list of official books found at Qumran nor does Josephus provide a list. He only gives a number which could mean any number of things. Yet Tim is quick to condemn Josephus for not including Baruch in his list of Bible Canon. 

When Josephus, then, quotes a list of what is referred to as Bible Canon, he most certainly is not representing the true sons of Zadok who were exiled by these factions to Qumran/Bethabara. 

pg. 11

However, even closer in 90 A.D., Josephus, who was a Pharisee who did not include Baruch in his Pharisee Bible which is impertinent to any discussion, well knew the skill of Baruch, not just as Jeremiah’s scribe but as the mouthpiece of the prophet.

pg. 81

How does Tim know that Josephus did not include Baruch in his Bible canon? He does not. He is making stuff up because he despises Josephus. Tim admits Baruch was usually compiled with Jeremiah into one book.

In fact, you will find the Book of Baruch confused with Jeremiah often in ancient times because it was once part of the Book of Jeremiah in treatment. 

pg. 78

It could very well be the case that Josephus's unnamed canon included Baruch as part of Jeremiah. 

Tim even claims that the Protestants derive their canon from Josephus!

No Pharisee ever qualifies as being ordained to keep Bible Canon to the First Century either but the opposite. This includes especially Josephus, the Pharisee, whose publishing of the Pharisee Canon now proves archaeologically to be a changing of Bible Canon also coalescing with the Pharisee Council of Jamnia oddly the same year. Generally, the Protestant Old Testament Canon today is driven by Jospehus’ listing from 90 A.D. or so and one could not be more uneducated especially in the face of the many rebukes of Pharisee doctrines, oral traditions and their Canon.

pg. 8

Tim offers ZERO PROOF for that claim which is no surprise because there are many claims made in this introduction which he never backs up. Claims such as The Wisdom of Sirach being penned by a family of "Biblical sages."

He and his grandfather share the same name but this is a family effort of Biblical sages qualified to write scripture. Thus, there are three consecutive generations of Sirach’s who authored or contributed to the content of this book as a grandfather, father and the culmination written by the grandson, “the son of Sirach” identifying the wisdom of “My grandfather Yahusha.”

pg. 38

What is Tim's proof that the author of Sirach is part of a family of Biblical sages? What does it even mean to be part of a family of Biblical sages? Tim never says. He makes this assertion and never proves it!

This is a good segue into his other test of canonicity and that is that the book must prove to be a "second witness" to the Bible. 

This is a basic foundational principle that undermines the whole of scripture as they censored witnesses to the Bible that the Bible requires, per scripture, as where are the second witnesses especially of some of the most important doctrines of both the Old and New Testaments?

pg. 9

Tim never explains what it means that the Bible requires second witnesses attesting to its veracity. His argument is actually circular as he says the Bible requires the Bible to prove itself! The Bible needs to refer to itself to be deemed true? SAYS WHO!? Again, he does not say. Likely this false hermeneutic is based on the following scripture:

Deuteronomy 19:15 One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established.

THAT is a judicial principle and not a hermeneutical principle. In his introduction Tim takes this principle to the most ridiculous extreme and says Jesus derived his doctrine from the Wisdom of Sirach!

Is there ancient precedence for Yahusha’s famous statement about knowing men by their fruits? This is extremely significant as he was quoting the Wisdom of Sirach, not creating new doctrine. Yahusha says: “Ye shall know them by their fruits.” This is worded even more closely in the NRSV Sirach as “...the fruit discloses the cultivation.” Yahusha quoted the Wisdom of Sirach. Why would any church avoid it? The scoffer may exclaim these are different because Yahusha editorializes as if the Son of Yahuah is not allowed to do so. We all know that is just plain stupid.

Messiah expresses He is the vine and we are the branches. He speaks of the sinner’s heart representing rocky soil in which good seeds cannot take root. The sinner does not bring forth many branches as a result and bad fruit, if any. This is all wrapped up together with the previous wisdom that you shall know them by their fruits. Believers bear good fruit and are pruned and flourish. The wicked will be cut off and burned in the fire. This entire analogy is not original to Yahusha. He read and understood the Wisdom of Sirach. One of the most important passages in all of the New Testament where Yahusha defines salvation, derives from the Wisdom of Sirach. He quoted it and editorialized in deeper explanation. 

pg. 70

Imagine that! God manifested in the flesh gets his salvation message from Sirach! Funny that the Apostles who Tim claims knew and quoted Sirach did not understand his parables which were lifted from Sirach.

Mark 4:10 And when he was alone, they that were about him with the twelve asked of him the parable.

11 And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all thesethings are done in parables:

12 That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.

13 And he said unto them, Know ye not this parable? and how then will ye know all parables?

Why were the people astonished at Christ's teaching if he lifted it from Sirach and Sirach was widely known?

Matthew 7:28 And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine:

29 For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.

He even says Sirach is the second witness of Christ's words. 

One can read many commentaries and books which note Yahusha’s words that one who will not forgive their brother will not be forgiven. Oddly, most of those scholars do not research the origin of such a paramount statement which better come from scripture with a second witness. There are even some who will assert this was Messiah creating new doctrine which is illiterate. For Yahusha was quoting Sirach 28 in this regard.

pg. 72

Furthermore Tim says not every book of the Bible contains a prophecy of Christ though many force such an interpretation!

Of course, not all Old Testament books contain prophecy of the coming Messiah. One can force archetypes or types of Christ as some attempt, but there is never a need to do so and we will not in this testing in which all six of these texts already pass as identifying with Biblical Israel. 

pg. 90

This betrays a complete misunderstanding of the scriptures. Let's hear what Origen has to say. 

...we must approach the whole of Scripture as one body, we must not lacerate nor break through the strong and well-knit connections which exist in the harmony of its whole composition, as those do who lacerate, so far as they can, the unity of the Spirit that is in all the Scriptures.

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/101510.htm

If you cannot see Christ in all the scriptures then you are blind. This quote is important because Tim calls Origen to the bar as a witness for his lies. 

Note, this account is specifically affirmed by Origen around 200 A.D. as he quotes First Esdras with attribution in his response to the scoffer, Julius Africanus who sounded like many modern scholars. Origen wrote he was reading 1st Esdras as historical and Biblical fact one would call inspired. He confuses Nehemiah and Zerubbabel which is a simple mistake as both were involved in the rebuilding.

185-254: Origen:

“Again we read in Esdras, that Neemias, a cup-bearer and eunuch of the king, of Hebrew race, made a request about the rebuilding of the temple, and obtained it...” – Origen’s Letter to Africanus 

pg. 54

This is false.  1st Esdras does not contain this story.  But the book of Nehmiah does!  This error stems from the fact that Tim does not understand that in the early Church Ezra-Nehemiah were combined into one book known as 1st Esdras while what we know as 1st and 2nd Esdras were called 3rd and 4th Esdras and were not included in the canon.  He further complicates his error in the following passage:

We also know historically, there was a practice among the very early church that included 2nd Esdras as the same book as 1st Esdras.

“Origen, in his Commentary on Ps. i, gives the second list that we know of, which belongs to a time not later than A.D. 231 ; he reckons as belonging to the Canon the twenty-two books of the Hebrew Old Testament. But, strange to say, Origen includes in his list the First Book of Esdras (he treats 1, 2 Esdras as one book) and the Epistle of Jeremiah, neither of which had ever been regarded as canonical by the Jews. Origen’s list is adopted by Athanasius, Cyril, and Epiphanius, as well as in the Laodicean Canon, in each case with the addition of Baruch.

Scholars noting that some quote or kept 1st Esdras but not 2nd Esdras because they do not break it out in the ancient mindset, do not represent the ancients and do not understand the pattern associated with how they kept scripture.  

pg. 65-66

Any honest examination of canonical lists shows beyond dispute that Ezra-Nehemiah were combined into one book known as 1st Esdras while 3rd and 4th Esdras were EXCLUDED from the canon. Historically speaking 1st Esdras is Ezra, 2nd Esdras is Nehemiah, and 3rd and 4th Esdras are what we know today as 1st and 2nd Esdras.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esdras#Naming_conventions

It can be a little confusing but Tim cannot even handle the title of Ecclesiasticus for the Wisdom of Sirach so it's no wonder he gets this wrong. 

Some refer to it as Ecclesiasticus as well, though a confusing title. 

pg. 38

Let me conclude with Tim's contradictory statements about Jesus Christ and Josephus. As I noted above Tim takes umbrage with the fact that Josephus cites Baruch but never names him. However he claims Jesus Christ cited Sirach, never named him, and to think that he would do so is illiterate. 

For those that require Messiah to always attribute every word He spoke to the book from where it originated, that is one of the most illiterate of false paradigms. 

pg. 70

Except that is exactly what Jesus does. Every time he cites scripture he says IT IS WRITTEN. While Jesus may echo the sentiments of Sirach he never says IT IS WRITTEN and then cites Sirach. But he does that with Moses and the Prophets of which Sirach is not a part. Sirach even acknowledges that the book is neither law nor prophets in in the prologue.

1 

The Prologue of the Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach. Whereas many and great things have been delivered unto us by the law and the prophets, and by others that have followed their steps, for the which things Israel ought to be commended for learning and wisdom; and whereof not only the readers must needs become skilful themselves, but also they that desire to learn be able to profit them which are without, both by speaking and writing: my grandfather Jesus, when he had much given himself to the reading of the law, and the prophets, and other books of our fathers, and had gotten therein good judgment, was drawn on also himself to write something pertaining to learning and wisdom; to the intent that those which are desirous to learn, and are addicted to these things, might profit much more in living according to the law. 

One last thing and that is Tim's comments on Acts 20:35:

I have shewed you all things, how that so labouring ye ought to support the weak, and to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, It is more blessed to give than to receive.” 

Tim says this is a quote not from the Lord Jesus Christ but from Jesus Ben Sirach!

Also, Acts 20:35 credits Yahusha for saying “It is more blessed to give than to receive.” That is not a quote documented of Yahusha Messiah. This is a quote from Yahusha Ben Sirach 4:31 exactly.

pg. 73

Really?  Despite the text saying that is a quote from Jesus Christ Tim claims it is not! Now he is contradicting the scriptures. And what does Ben Sirach 4:31 say?

Let not thine hand be stretched out to receive, and shut when thou shouldest repay.

Does that look like an exact quote to you? Even the sentiment is wrong because this verse is not about GIVING but about REPAYING! His note on the text says:

Cf. Acts 20:35, credits Yahusha for saying: “It is more blessed to give than to receive.” He has no such quote in the Gospels but Yahusha Ben Sirach does.

Does Tim honestly believe that EVERYTHING Jesus spoke or did was written down? Even the Gospels says this is not the case!

25 

John 21:25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen

Acts 20:35 is often cited as a proof text for the authority of unwritten tradition but you won't find Tim wading into those waters. He can hardly swim as it is!

To put it bluntly this book showcases how Tim undermines the Scriptures and thinks he knows more than anyone else especially scholars who have devoted their entire lives to studying the Greek and Hebrew Scriptures. This man is ignorant beyond belief and every publication reveals his stunning lack of basic knowledge when it comes to these things. As I noted at the beginning there are so many commentaries and papers about these books that we do not need the musings of Timothy Jay Schwab to muddy the waters. 

The God Culture: 100 Lies About the Philippines: Lie #22: Abraham Farissol Locates the Lost Tribes of Israel in the Philippines

Welcome back to 100 Lies the God Culture Teaches About the Philippines.  Today's lie concerns Tim's claims about Abraham Farissol. Abraham Farissol was a Jew who lived during the Renaissance and wrote a book called Iggeret Orhot Olam in which he discusses the location of the Lost tribes of Israel. Tim claims he placed them in the Philippines but as we shall see that is not only a lie but Tim has never even read what Farissol wrote!

In one of his videos Tim says the following:

Clue#25: Philippines is Ophir: Magellan, Pinto, Barbosa, King of Spain, Cabot KNEW - Ophir, Tarshish

2:00 First to follow up on Columbus from our last video. We said Columbus in his margin notes and journal had initially found in his research the location of Ophir, Tarshish, the Garden of Eden, and some of the lost tribes of Israel all in the Philippines in fact. He was not the only one however in his era. 

Now, this original writing is lost to history but preserved in an 1846 book by Rev. Thomas Stackhouse.  Stackhouse records that Italian-Jewish scholar and contemporary to Columbus, Farrisol, reached the very same conclusion regarding the lost tribes. He says the lost tribes of Israel are in, for one,...THE PHILIPPINES!  Huh? Ever hear that one in your history class? Yeah. Us either. 

Gee, these Italian-Jews were searching hard for the lost tribes in the Philippines.

This same claim is also in Tim's book The Search for King Solomon's Treasure.

The Search for King Solomon's Treasure, pg 128

Take note that Tim is not citing Abraham Farissol but a Reverend Tomas Stackhouse. Stackhouse does not even cite Farissol but gives a summation of what he claims Farissol wrote:

Another Jewish author, in his description of the world, has found out very commodious habitations for the ten tribes, and in many places has given them a glorious establishment. In a country which he calls Perricha, inclosed by unknown mountains, and bounded by Assyria, he has settled some, and made them a flourishing and populous kingdom. 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. Nay, he enters the Indies likewise, and peoples the banks of the Ganges, the isles of Bengala, the Philippines, and several other places, with the Jews, to whom he assigns a powerful king, called Daniel, who had three other kings tributary, and dependent on him. But this is all of the same piece, a forged account to aggrandize the nation, and to make it be believed, that the sceptre is not departed from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, and that Shiloh consequently is not yet come. 

https://archive.org/details/historyofholybib00stac/page/649/mode/2up

Does Farissol locate the Desert of Chabor on the Indian Sea? No he does not. He says it is in Asia Major. This is all laid out in chapter 14 of Farissol's book Iggeret Orhot Olam of which I have found an English translation. It was published in 3 parts over the course of 3 issues of The Occident and Jewish American Advocate in 1849.

In this chapter Farissol relates the visit of a member of the lost tribes to Rome. He came to Rome from the Desert of Chabor by way of Arabia Felix, which is Yemen, Egypt, and then Israel. He locates two of the tribes in this desert and the other ten near Mecca and Jeddah. That is nowhere near the Philippines. The magazine has extensive footnotes which are worth reading. Here is part of the chapter.

This was in the two hundred and eighty-third year of the sixth millennium, when we received, through a Venetian vessel a communication from the Land of Beauty, written in the Hebrew language, informing us that a certain Jew, from the tribes of Israel, had arrived there, declaring many novel things concerning them. The details however, were not made public, until, after having crossed the sea in the two hundred and eighty-fourth year of the sixth millennium, he arrived at Venice, and thence proceeded to Rome, where he was favourably received by all those who became acquainted with the object of his journey and the nature of his mission. 

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. Living between these two sections of the Jewish people, however, there is a strong and mighty people who are followers of Mahomet. These, with their numerous kings, render a communication among the Jews exceedingly dangerous, and they will not permit one party to approach the other. 

Many years had they been thus widely separated, endeavouring to approach each other, but finding it impossible to do so, when they were apprised of the arrival of some Christian ships of very large and mighty proportions. They also heard, and, indeed, saw, that the Christians had in their hands certain hollow metal instruments of war designed to throw stones by means of fire, and which could destroy any fortress or village. Whereupon, the Jews of Mount Chabor, according to his statement, determined upon sending him to the great king of all the Christians, with the credentials then in  his possession, as before stated, in order to authenticate his assertions. These credentials were confirmed by the king of Portugal who then navigated the regions of the Hodiyim (or Indies), and who knew of the existence of a Jewish community there. He also wrote to the Pope, (whose glory be exalted,) that the above mentioned Jew was worthy of credit, as were also his declarations. But be this Jew what he may, and be his words true or false, it is sufficient for us, in our captivity and in our dispersions (to know), that the existence of the ten tribes was acknowledged by kings, by princes, and by many influential persons in Rome—that Ephraim existed, even then—a numerous people with their rulers; be this Jew, who came to us, who and what he may.

Since the existence of these Israelites and their kings has been thus acknowledged; we may be permitted to state, that this Jew came by the way and in the manner following : From the desert of Chabor he journeyed with a caravan, which is the usual mode of travelling in these places. This was heard from his own lips and so recorded. Passing through Arabia Felix, he arrived at the Red Sea descended into Egypt, thence journeyed to the Holy Land, where he awaited the arrival of a ship from Venice, by which he might proceed to Italy. He reached Rome, and resided there about eight months, until the reply of the king of Portugal had been received,which authenticated his mission.

The Occident and Jewish American Advocate, June 1849, pgs. 129-134

Plotted on a map his journey looks like this: 

Arabia Felix is Yemen and that is where Farissol says he started his voyage to Italy. That means the desert of Chabor covers Yemen. But Farissol also says that Mecca and Jeddah are BENEATH this Jew's location in the deserts near Mecca and Jeddah! Actually his description does not make any sense at all. This Jew lives in the desert of Chabor and the other ten lost tribes live beneath him near Mecca but he starts his journey in Arabia Felix which is South of Mecca! Perhaps Farissol does not know what he is talking about and is making it all up?

Whatever the solution to this geographical conundrum one thing is certain. Timothy Jay Schwab is dead wrong when he says that Farissol locates the lost tribes of Israel in the Philippines. If he was a real researcher he would have read Farissol's own words which relay this fact. But because he is a fraud he has relied on the words of someone else. 

The God Culture: 100 Lies About the Philippines: Lie #21: Pigafetta Saw Peacocks in the Philippines

Welcome back to 100 lies the God Culture teaches about the Philippines. Today's lie once again concerns Antonio Pigafetta's Journal. Tim says that Pigafetta saw and ate Peacocks on the island of Palawan. 

As we shall see this is another lie easily disproved by actually reading what Pigafetta wrote and paying attention to where he is during his narration. 

100 Clues #20: Philippines Is The Ancient Land of Ophir: Peacocks? - Ophir, Sheba, Tarshish 

2:23 In his journal Pigafetta records, actually twice, the presence of the Palawan peacock. Here he describes a ship from the Philippines. What? Wait. The Philippines had ships? Oh, yes. Mega ships of that day even. We'll get there too don't worry, coming soon. This ship was even ornamented with gold on the stern. Wow! Gee, maybe that was a resource there, just guessing. And on the bow a white and blue flag with a tuft of peacock feathers, yes, peacocks. Later in Palawan Pigafetta describes an elaborate dinner being prepared for the visitors with other birds and fowl and over 30 different kinds of fish. That's quite a dinner. Oh yeah, and there were they were preparing peacock for dinner as well! 

Tim has this same testimony in his book The Search for King Solomon's Treasure.

The Search for King Solomon's Treasure, pg. 108

We find references to this peacock in Pigafetta’s Journal twice.

“The next day the king of that island sent a prahu to the ships; it was very handsome, with its prow and stern ornamented with gold; on the bow fluttered a white and blue flag, with a tuft of peacock’s feathers at the top of the staff” –Pigafetta, 1521 [85]

“Afterwards there came nine men to the governor’s house, sent by the king, with as many large wooden trays, in each of which were ten or twelve china dishes, with the flesh of various animals, such as veal, capons, fowls, peacocks, and others, with various sorts of fish, so that only of flesh there were thirty or thirty-two different viands.”

–Pigafetta, 1521 [85]

The problem here is that, just as with the elephants Pigafetta saw, this happened in Borneo, not Palawan!

Notice that the ship Pigafetta describes is also Bornean and not Filipino. Pigafetta says quite clearly that it was sent by the King of Borneo himself. 

http://ia600501.us.archive.org/9/items/firstvoyageround00piga/firstvoyageround00piga.pdf

Pigafetta at no time ever records that he encountered peacocks while in Palawan but in Borneo. 

The Bornean peacock is a tiny little thing, a pheasant really. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bornean_peacock-pheasant

Likewise the Palawan peacock is also a small pheasant.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palawan_peacock-pheasant

Here he is showing off his plumage:

https://ferrebeekeeper.wordpress.com/2013/12/16/the-palawan-peacock-pheasant/

Does that look like the photo in Tim's video about peacocks in the Philippines? Of course not. That is because he is using a picture of the Indian peafowl.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peafowl#

Not only does Tim lie about Pigafetta encountering peacocks in Palawan but he cannot even be bothered to use an actual photo of the Palawan Peacock-pheasant!

This is the third time we have seen Tim lie about Pigafetta's journal. The first lie was that he saw elephants, the second lie was that Pigafetta recorded Samar as being Cattigara, and now this third lie is that Pigafetta encountered peacocks in Palawan. Why does Timothy Jay Schwab continue to lie about the journal of Antonio Pigafetta?