The God Culture: There is No Italian Mafia

Timothy Jay Schwab who is the God Culture has some interesting ideas about the Italian Mafia. He says they do not exist because they were all Italian Jews. 

58:05 Now, these made the lowest of their society, no not the poor even lower, the lowest are the criminals. They made them their priests. What, a criminal priesthood? And they became known as Pharisees. This is why you see uh for instance the Jewish Mafia, no there is no Italian mafia because most of them were Italian Jews that's just fact. It is a Jewish Paradigm that doesn't mean that all Mafia is but the the top and the origin of it comes from that Paradigm. Uh, they were also the Pirates of the Caribbean the Pirates of, uh, the Barbary Coast they were Jews that's the way they operate. Uh, the the fact is, uh, they touted and some of the Jewish authors will even, you know, talk about how wonderful it is that the Pirates were Jewish yet, um, uh, no not really. It proves that, uh, especially those at the top, again the average Jew wasn't a pirate, the average Jew isn't even a part of that Paradigm and they're attending their synagogues thinking they're doing the right thing not knowing any of this either just like you and I didn't for the longest time.

But those calling themselves Jews are from this criminal element in ancient times. The priesthood is what they became but they were not and that's why they operate like criminals even when they have the priesthood. That's why they hunt and kill uh imprison and kill uh you know their enemies, what they view as their enemies uh from Yahusha his Apostles uh other disciples after that we've covered after the apostles, uh, a series of a few videos that really brings that out in the time after the apostles, uh, in where the actual true Ecclesia was still keeping the Sabbath on Saturday, they were still keeping the feasts of the Bible and they were rebuking the Catholic Church for trying to change it. Now, you even see the talmud taking a mafia approach really to religion uh in fact desiring to deceive the Goyim in the most racist uh implication we've ever seen I think. Branding non-jews is a lesser species of sort uh that's strictly evil there's no other way to read that. Whenever any religion does that including Islam it is so ridiculous and don't ever tell me that that comes from anything that would remotely resemble Yahuah.

Oops! Josephus Reveals 1st Century Babylonian Pharisee Calendar. The Event That Changed the Calendar

This comment is totally unbelievable. There most certainly IS an Italian mafia which originated in Sicily. 

The Sicilian Mafia or Cosa Nostra (Italian: Sicilian: "our thing"), also referred to as simply Mafia, is a criminal society originating on the island of Sicily and dates back to the mid-19th century. It is an association of gangs which sell their protection and arbitration services under a common brand. The Mafia's core activities are protection racketeering, the arbitration of disputes between criminals, and the organizing and oversight of illegal agreements and transactions.

The basic group is known as a "family", "clan", or cosca. Each family claims sovereignty over a territory, usually a town, village or neighborhood (borgata) of a larger city, in which it operates its rackets. Its members call themselves "men of honor", although the public often refers to them as mafiosi. By the 20th century, wide-scale emigration from Sicily led to the formation of mafiosi style gangs in Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada, the United States and South America. These diaspora-based outfits replicated the traditions and methods of their Sicilian ancestors to varying extents.

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

And there is also a Jewish mafia which operated in the USA.

Jewish-American organized crime initially emerged within the American Jewish community during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. In media and popular culture, it has variously been referred to as the Jewish Mob, the Jewish Mafia, the Kosher Mob, the Kosher Mafia, the Yiddish Connection, and Kosher Nostra  or Undzer Shtik.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish-American_organized_crime

It is simply unhistorical nonsense to claim that the Sicilian mafia was run by and originates from Italian Jews. 

As for Jews being "the Pirates of the Caribbean", that too is nonsense. While Jews did engage in piracy Caribbean Pirates were not largely Jewish. Piracy in the Caribbean was mostly irregular European warfare with French, English, and Dutch privateers (pirates supported by the state) raiding Spanish ships in a bid to weaken their empire. Piracy in the Caribbean has a long complicated history and to say the Jews were "the Pirates of the Caribbean" is stupid and wrong. 

But this is Timothy Jay Schwab who is The God Culture we are talking about here. Everything he says about history boils down to "it's the Jews and the nephilim" which is quite stupid and wrong. 

The God Culture: "Christian" Is A Pagan Term

Timothy Jay Schwab who is The God Culture is no Christian. Understanding his doctrines makes it more than abundantly clear that Tim does not follow Christ by rejecting His free grace in favor of keeping the law. However, Tim would say he is no Christian because it is a pagan term.

Why can scholars not conduct an ounce of research to see they are propagating the Babylonian and Egyptian mystery religion calling it Christianity, a term not really used in the bible except by pagans or for the benefit of pagans in understanding because that was their brand? A very negative light of the followers of Yahusha. The first ecclesia never called themselves Christians or the term would be in the New Testament a thousand times not just four. Talk about ridiculous.  

Egyptian Book of the Dead. Origin of Church Doctrine on Judgment? Part 8 Answers In 2nd Esdras 23H

First of all the word "Christian" is in the Bible three times not four. 

Second of all there is nothing to indicate that the term was used derisively. In fact, Peter embraces the term.

1 Peter 4:16 Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf.

King Agrippa also uses the term in a positive manner. 

Acts 26:28 Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian.

Third of all the first church did in fact call themselves Christian. If Tim read the writings of the early Church he would know that. Polycarp, a disciple of the Apostle John, declared himself to be a Christian. 

Since you are vainly urgent that, as you say, I should swear by the fortune of Cæsar, and pretend not to know who and what I am, hear me declare with boldness, I am a Christian. And if you wish to learn what the doctrines of Christianity are, appoint me a day, and you shall hear them.

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0102.htm

If Christian was a derisive term not used by followers of Christ to identify themselves then why is a disciple of John the Apostle employing it to describe himself? Where did he learn this term if not at the feet of the Beloved Disciple John?

Fourth of all Christian is by no means a pagan term. Jesus is the Christos, Messiah, and the term is derived from that word. Christians follow the Christos. 

It is simply more dumb nonsense from Timothy Jay Schwab. 

The God Culture: Josephus Founded The Catholic Church

Timothy Jay Schwab who is The God Culture hates the Church so much that he claims it was taken over by Satan in the first century. He also claims Josephus founded the Catholic Church. Of course in the first century there was ONLY one, holy, apostolic, universal (i.e. Catholic) Church which means Tim is calming against all facts and reason Josephus founded the Church.

 

47:38 So, yes Josephus founded that, what became the Catholic Church. 

Gog of Magog Attacks: FRESH REVELATION: Lost Tribes Series 5: Who is Gog?

When did Josephus the historian find time to found the Catholic Church? Tim does not offer any proof for this bogus and laughable claim. It's not just nonsense, it is blasphemy for Jesus Christ said:

Matthew 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Suffice to say Satan did not take over the Church in the first century and Josephus did not found the Catholic Church. It's more lies from Timothy Jay Schwab.

The God Culture: There Was a Greek Colony in the Philippines in 800 BC

Timothy Jay Schwab who is The God Culture is a man who stands alone. He is the only one in the entire world standing against all historical evidence and stating boldly that not only was there a Greek colony in the Philippines but also they were circumnavigating Africa to access it in the year 800 BC.

 

32:11 So, here we have history, yes history, that in 800 BC the ships of Tarshish, the Greek ships yes from the Greek colony over in the Philippines, were able to show up in Joppa Israel on the Mediterranean. How about that? There was no Suez Canal yet and the Red Sea port was out of commission. They circumnavigated Africa it was the only option and it's documented right here in 800 BC.

Did The Ancients Sail Around Africa? Bible Evidence. Solomon's Gold Series 16A

Now, that is indeed rather interesting don't you think? There was a Greek colony in the Philippines dated to 800 B.C.? Where is the evidence for such a colony? That would be a huge archaeological discovery seeing as Alexander did not even reach India until 326 B.C.! It would mean Greek soldiers marched or sailed to the Philippines BEFORE the Peloponnesian War and only 300 years after the Trojan War.

But, alas, there is no evidence of an Ancient Greek colony in the Philippines. Nor is there any evidence that the Greeks were circumnavigating Africa to reach the Philippines in the year 800 BC. It's more than total nonsense and complete ignorance. It is a laughable lie Timothy Jay Schwab teaches against all evidence. You can read more about those claims here.

The God Culture: God Did Not Preserve His Word on Earth

Timothy Jay Schwab who is The God Culture claims to be a Bible teacher who has found out all sorts of things  within its pages concerning the Philippines. But it is not possible for Tim to know anything about what the Bible actually says or means because he claims God has only preserved his Word in Heaven and not on Earth. 

20:17 This is the best track possible because scripture was kept in Heaven first and that Heavenly Tablet was shared with Moses on Mount Sinai which keeps that in perfect condition even better than what we call the Bible passed down. Everybody worries about how this or that is translated but understand, you know, Yahuah said he would preserve his word he meant in Heaven it's perfect.

Biblical Tithe Series: Part 7: The History of the Law of Tithing

According to Tim God has not preserved His word perfectly on earth but only in Heaven! What good is that for us who are not in Heaven but on Earth? It is a denial of God's sovereignty and an admission that no one, Tim included, can ever know what God's word says for sure because it is only perfectly kept in Heaven. 

This is the fruit of leaving the Church and spitting on all the faithful Christian scholars who have devoted their lives to studying and explaining the Hebrew and Greek texts. The sum of it is Timothy Jay Schwab, by declaring Bible translations, dictionaries, and concordances to be corrupt, has admitted he has no idea what the Bible actually teaches nor will he ever know what it teaches.

The God Culture: Exposing The Lies in Our Bibles

Timothy Jay Schwab who is The God Culture has released a series of videos about the New Moon festival of the Bible. Let's see what Tim has to say about the matter. 

New MOON or New MONTH? Part 1. Exposing the Lies in Our Bibles!

The gist of these videos is that every time "New Moon" appears it is is a mistranslation.

6:39 The fact is all 21 of these verses these uses are mistranslated. All.

But it's more than a mere mistranslation. It is a deliberate and evil fraud.

3:07 This is one of the biggest frauds of our age. They change the Bible. Someone, and we all know who, inserted their Babylonian lunar calendar into the Bible in modern texts and it's not there in the Hebrew or Greek. It's just not

33:44 It's not an honest mistake. This is evil really. Because what they're doing is they're transposing false Doctrine into the Bible.

The fraud runs so deep that even Bible dictionaries and concordances have been compromised. 

35:00 What they're doing is, uh, changing the Bible through definitions, through concordances, and through, through Bible translation and that's what they've done. We are in a strong delusion but we can see through this and correct it.

If all Bible translations, dictionaries, and concordances are corrupt just how exactly are we supposed to see though this "strong delusion" and correct it? On what basis can we trust anything Tim says when he admits the very documents he uses, those same Bible translations, dictionaries, and concordances, are corrupt? Is he endowed with some kind of Holy X-ray vision to see through these alleged lies? Of course not.  According to Tim it's because he has done all the research! In the second part of this series he says:

45:21 These will Enlighten as they are well researched and no one can actually debate these things. They try but not successfully when they do

What Is the New MONTH Festival? Never Moon!

Research is Tim's key word. He says he was taught by the Messianic movement how to keep the sabbath but it turned out they were wrong. He found this out by doing research.

15:17 Again, we started our Sabbath series. We told people how we kept the Sabbath honestly and accurately to what we did and what we what we were taught. Problem is we were taught wrong. Uh, the Messianic, uh, movement, uh, is is lying to us telling us we're on a lunar calendar. So, we told everybody we start Sabbath, uh, at sundown Friday. Well guess what? Then we tested it and as we tested it the research leads where the research leads. That is how you get to the truth.

What Is the New MONTH Festival? Never Moon!

But how does he know the conclusions he draws from his research are correct? Surely every sectarian has done their research and it has led them to wherever they are. What Tim is asking, demanding in fact, from his audience is that they trust his OPINIONS. It is Tim by himself outside the Holy Spirit led Body of Christ, the Church, who has come to the REAL truth, the truth THEY are HIDING from everyone by corrupting the very texts Tim is using in his research to prove they are corrupt. 

For Tim all one has to do is read enough and one can come to the truth. Except he has admitted the very texts he is using are corrupt and we are in a strong delusion. If Tim is in a strong delusion how can he alone see through it? What is his epistemic basis for that claim? He gives none because he has none. 

All the scholars who have devoted themselves to reading and studying ancient texts and languages have come to different conclusions than Tim yet he calls them ignorant and illiterate. How can Tim and the scholars reach different conclusions when they have the same method?

That is a huge problem for which he offers no way out. Timothy Jay Schwab has no justified epistemic foundation for what he is teaching except for his own research, i.e. his own opinions which he derives from books he claims are corrupt. Upon closer inspection his opinions are always wrong as I have documented in every single article I have written about The God Culture. 

For example Psalm 81:3 mentions the New Moon.

Blow up the trumpet in the new moon, in the time appointed, on our solemn feast day.

According to Tim this is actually referring to the Feast of Trumpets. After all, the Feast of Trumpets is the ONLY feast on which a trumpet is blown on the first of the month.

38:29 So, what Feast do we blow Trumpets on the first of the month? Is this really hard? Why can't Scholars just get stuff like this straight? Well, the new month, hm, it's called Yom Teruah. It's the Feast of Trumpets which falls on Ethanim 1 the first day of the new month, duh. And what do? We do we blow trumpets, taada!!! This isn't really hard folks there you go new moon out. This is new month.

That is totally wrong because Numbers 10:10 says:

Also in the day of your gladness, and in your solemn days, and in the beginnings of your months, ye shall blow with the trumpets over your burnt offerings, and over the sacrifices of your peace offerings; that they may be to you for a memorial before your God: I am the LORD your God.

Tim is wrong that the Feast of Trumpets is the only feast on which a trumpet is blown on the first of the month. The Mosaic Law says a trumpet must be blown at the beginning of every month. Here we see how Tim's research which no one can debate fails radically. Funny that Tim does not mention this verse at all in his entire series about the New Moon and the New Month festival. 

The very first video in this series shows that Tim cannot justify anything he is saying as he has admitted the very Bible translations, dictionaries, and concordances he uses are corrupt and he is in the midst of a strong delusion. On what basis can he say the texts he uses are corrupt but he can see through their corruptions? He cannot. It is pure hubris to say we are in a strong delusion yet he alone can see through it because he has studied corrupted texts. 

The second part of this series examines the other verses Tim neglected and tells us the exact purpose of the New Month festival. 

What Is the New MONTH Festival? Never Moon!

This video says we are to still keep the New Moon feast which is actually the New Month feast. It is not a feast day and is in fact a relaxed get together with no specifics give on how to keep it. Tim calls it an "additional tradition."

19:43 Now it's, uh, just a dinner as, uh, we can see in scripture, uh, not a lot of specifics and the reason is is they're not needed. It's just a gathering uh a time of worship that's all.

26:26 No it's, it's not a feast day, uh, it's not included as a one of the seven biblical feasts. It's not a Sabbath, it's not one of the 52 sabbaths. This is additional, uh, tradition in the Bible.

Additional tradition in the Bible?  No, it's part of the Mosaic Law which is binding on the nation of Israel. It is not a tradition Moses made up. Tim is also wrong about the lack of specifics because Numbers tells us how to keep it. It includes blowing a trumpet. 

Tim also claims the ascension of Jesus affirms the New Month feast so we must keep it. 

34:25 He resurrected on the weekly Sabbath and then he affirmed the new month Festival in his Ascension after 40 days on the first day of the new month the third month.

Except the Bible never says or hints at such a thing. 

But even if it did Tim says he does not have a true calendar. In fact the calendar in the very translation of Jubilees he published is filled with errors!

11:24 Now, this is an ancient tradition. This is the Bible tradition and Bible calendar and it matters. It matters because this is Torah. That's why Jubilees, when we published it, uh, we call it the Book of Jubilees the Torah Calendar because Jubilees keeps the Torah calendar. Is it perfect? Well, you know what, uh, it, it was preserved in the Ethiopic, translated then into English. Did R H Charles do a great job? Yes absolutely. Was he perfect? No, no of course not. There are mistakes in there, uh, in translation that if you looked at the original Hebrew, which we don't necessarily have in each passage that's part of the the challenge there, when you're looking at those things, and of course if we didn't have the the ancient Hebrew we didn't go back and change it because we didn't have the Precedence to overturn it even though we we know that it's not it but we'll teach that.

Tim also says he has no idea when or how to keep the New Month festival because he is not God!

1:40 So, hodesh is never New Moon. It is new month and this is a new month Festival which we see established here in the plural really. Um, the question will remain, and we do not have a complete answer for everything, sorry we're not God, okay? Um, we do our best. But here's what we're seeing. I mean there's a new month Festival in scripture it's there many times, you're going to see this video, uh, and the question is when do we observe it? Uh, it's not a Biblical feast in, in, on the par with this Seven Feasts, uh, it's not a Sabbath and in fact it's not a Sabbath in practice even, uh, in Scripture that we're seeing so far, uh, but it's simply you know a, a get together, a meal, a gathering of course which you focus on scripture. They would sacrifice but we don't do that anymore as far as animal sacrifices but you can still do your spice offering, your drink offering those kinds of things.

Despite admitting he does not know when or how to keep the New Month Festival Tim says he has begun keeping it anyway. 

39:45 Frankly we had not kept these until just recently. so, there you go folks. We, we were not keeping the new month Festival. We now are trying to restore this. We haven't taught it before because the research was pending. We don't mention it in our books because we hadn't researched it yet in detail. Now we have. Now we're just having a dinner with spice offerings, drink offerings, and of course we teach and spend time in fellowship and in the word.

How does Tim know he is right? Because scripture interprets scripture. 

4:30 Scripture defines scripture on this. Again precedent already established in the last video.

So, Tim admits he does not even know when to properly keep the new month festival yet says he is keeping it, calls the scripture corrupt and yet says scripture interprets Scripture! But that is all incoherent nonsense. If the scripture is corrupt and the tools available to a layman like Tim to interpret it are corrupt then it cannot interpret itself correctly on the matter nor can Tim interpret it correctly. 

According to Tim it is no big deal whether or not he has the right calendar because the intent of the heart is what matters. 

23:02 Heart intent, heart intent is always paramount.

Of course the Bible never says such a thing. The law is very clear that the feasts must be kept on the right day and in the right manner and to not do so is an offense to God. In fact the law is above one's "heart intent" as we we see in the story of Uzzah.

2 Samuel 6:6 And when they came to Nachon's threshingfloor, Uzzah put forth his hand to the ark of God, and took hold of it; for the oxen shook it.

7 And the anger of the Lord was kindled against Uzzah; and God smote him there for his error; and there he died by the ark of God.

Uzzah's "heart intent" to save the Ark from falling was no match for God's law which says only the Levites were to handle the Ark. 

Tim claims there will be five videos in this series but it has been over a month since the second video was published and no more parts have been forthcoming. But no matter because these videos are enough to demonstrate that Timothy Jay Schwab is absolutely mad and his entire logical system is fallacious.

He says we are in a time of strong delusion as all Bible translations, dictionaries, and concordances are corrupt. Then he claims he can see past that corruption and give a correct interpretation concerning the New Moon Festival. But this is not possible if ALL THE TEXTS HE IS USING ARE CORRUPT! He has shot himself in the foot and given himself no justified epistemic ground on which to stand for anything that follows after that statement. 

Tim's doctrine of Bible Preservation should be noted here. He claims that translations, which he says are corrupt, do not actually matter because God has preserved His Word on the Heavenly Tablets in Heaven.

20:17 This is the best track possible because scripture was kept in Heaven first and that Heavenly Tablet was shared with Moses on Mount Sinai which keeps that in perfect condition even better than what we call the Bible passed down. Everybody worries about how this or that is translated but understand, you know, Yahuah said he would preserve his word he meant in Heaven it's perfect.

Biblical Tithe Series: Part 7: The History of the Law of Tithing

According to Tim God has not preserved His word perfectly on earth but only in Heaven! What good is that for us who are not in Heaven but on Earth? It is a denial of God's sovereignty and an admission that no one, Tim included, can ever know what God's word says for sure because it is only perfectly kept in Heaven. 

Furthermore he admits he does not know when or how to keep the New Moon Festival because "we're not God" and then proceeds to speak for 50 minutes on how to keep the New Moon Festival! He also admits the calendar he published in Jubilees is corrupt and he does not have the right calendar but keeping the New Month festival on the correct date does not matter only "heart intent" matters. 

There is no longer any reason for anyone to ever again listen to Tim speak of Bible matters because he admits the texts and interpretive apparatuses he is using are corrupt. If they are corrupt then he will only be able to give corrupt teachings. Not only that but Tim claims God has preserved His Word not on Earth but only in Heaven which means no one on Earth can ever hope to know the Word of God. This is the fruit of leaving the Church and spitting on all the faithful Christian scholars who have devoted their lives to studying and explaining the Hebrew and Greek texts. The sum of it is Timothy Jay Schwab, by declaring Bible translations, dictionaries, and concordances to be corrupt, has admitted he has no idea what the Bible actually teaches nor will he ever know what it teaches.

The God Culture: The Philippines is the Center of the Center of Marine Biodiversity

The scientific fact that the Philippines is the "center of the center of marine biodiversity" plays a central role in Timothy Jay Schwab's claim that the Philippines is the land of creation and thus the location of the Garden of Eden, Ophir, Tarshish, etc. So central is this to his thesis that the second video The God Culture produced to promote their new book "The Search for King Solomon's Treasure" is focused on this claim.

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

Where did creation occur? Marine life survived the flood. The center of the center of marine biodiversity on the entire planet is the Philippines. Epicenter of the coral triangle. The Philippines land of creation.

That is a very truncated statement of Tim's doctrine concerning the Philippines' marine biodiversity as being proof that the Philippines is the "land of creation." That phrase is problematic in itself because God created an entire planet not just one land. This claim is also discussed elsewhere in his videos.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tz2Bmcm05_A

4:23 So if we want to know the origin of man and animals the land of creation we know exactly where to look it's not difficult. We don't go looking for bones of man or land animals who rebooted during the flood as all but what was on the ark was wiped out but those creatures which were not wiped out by the flood, marine species. Find the most diverse population of marine life on earth and you have actually found the land of creation. Now, see that is science, observation, and even logic.

6:59 The Carpenter report on environmental biology of fishes reports "The Philippines is not only part of the center but is, in fact the epicentre of marine biodiversity, with the richest concentration of marine life on the entire planet." See not actually debatable is it. The Philippines is the land of creation

"Find the most diverse population of marine life on earth and you have actually found the land of creation. Now, see that is science, observation, and even logic."  That's actually called an assumption. Why would a diverse marine population tell us anything about the creation of man or land animals? Tim does not say. He simply asserts it as being true.

As I previously wrote Tim does not actually cite the Carpenter report's findings. Instead he cites a brief summary of the report. Let's look at the report and see what it actually says.

Carpenter Report

From the Synopsis:

Analysis of distribution data for 2983 species reveals a pattern of richness on a finer scale and identifies a peak of marine biodiversity in the central Philippine Islands and a secondary peak between peninsular Malaysia and Sumatra. This pattern is repeated in diverse habitat and higher taxa classes, most rigorously for marine shore fishes, supporting geohistorical hypotheses as the most general unifying explanations.

From the Methods section:

Related to the area of accumulation hypothesis is that the IMPA also serves as an area of refuge (Bellwood & Hughes 2001) because it encompasses the most extensive and diverse tropical shallow water marine habitat on earth.

pg. 5-6

Results:

Analysis of the 2983 combined ranges reveals the central Philippines as the area of highest diversity and endemism (Figure 5a, b). A secondary area of high diversity is located between the tip of Malaysia and Sumatra and extends along north- eastern Sumatra and northern Java (Figure 5a). Both diversity centers are repeated in subsets of data based on distribution, habitat, all inverte- brate taxa, and shore fishes.

pg. 6 

Discussions

Because of its greater area, Indonesia may eventually be shown to have a greater overall marine biodiversity than the Philippines. However, there is a higher concentration of species per unit area in the Philippines than anywhere in Indonesia, including Wallacea, according to our study.

pg.8 

The hypothesis that the IMPA is a center of origin is not falsified by the central Philippine epicenter of diversity. However, it is not readily apparent why geological events that promoted allopatric speciation may have been more prevalent in the Philippines than in Wallacea.

pg.10 

The overall conclusion from our study is that the diversity found in the IMPA is likely a combination of many processes, as evidenced by the secondary center of diversity we observed. However the higher number of species per unit area in the Philippines than elsewhere in the IMPA indicates that concentrated allopatric speciation and island integration across the Philippine archipelago appears to have played an important role in shaping the diversity of the IMPA. These hypotheses warrant further testing through refined vicariance biogeography methods and molecular phylogeographic approaches.

pg. 13

To sum up according to this paper, "multiple datasets show global maxima of marine biodiversity in the Indo–Malay–Philippines archipelago (IMPA)." However the epicenter of this diversity is the Philippines. This diversity consists in "the number of species per unit area" and not the number of unique species per se which only number 2,983. There is also a "secondary peak" of diversity "between peninsular Malaysia and Sumatra."   This map illustrates these findings.

The top 10% of species richness is in shades of red and yellow and the remaining decreasing increments of species richness are indicated by lighter shades of blue. The greatest diversity is red (1693 to 1736 species), followed by pink (1650 to 1692 species), yellow (1606 to 1649 species), and light yellow (1563 to 1605 species).

pg.7

The map in the bottom corner (f) shows how this diversity overlaps. The entire area is a global center of marine biodiversity "per unit area" not in the number of species per se which is only 2,983. The diversity in the IMPA stems from it being crowded and not because there is a high number of unique species in the area.

What does this mean for Tim's thesis that the Philippines has the most diverse marine life and is thus the land of creation? It means his claim is very misleading. It is readily apparent that he does not understand that the diversity consists in distribution of species "per unit area" and not in the number of unique species per se. In this study only the distribution of 2,983 species were studied. The region with the greatest number of those species "per unit area" is the Philippines. Those same species are distributed throughout the IMPA but in lower, but not by much, numbers. The entire area is a center of marine biodiversity with the Philippines being the epicenter.  Why is that? The author, Kent Carpenter, says more study is needed. 

There are far more then 2,983 marine species on the planet. Are there other areas with even more diverse populations of marine life? Of course.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2914069/

We analyze the state of knowledge of marine biodiversity based on the geographic distribution of georeferenced species records and regional taxonomic lists. A total of 12,046 marine species are reported in this paper for the Caribbean region. 

The total number of endemic species for those taxa is 1,563, which represents 25.6% of the species for these groups.

This paper on Caribbean marine biodiversity analyses 12,046 species and 25.6% of them are endemic, native, to the region. Likewise the Mediterranean Sea is a hotspot of biodiversity and boasts of many endemic species.

Mediterranean Sea

A rough estimate of more than 8,500 species of macroscopic marine organisms should live in the Mediterranean Sea, corresponding to somewhat between 4% and 18% of the world marine species. This is a conspicuous figure if one considers that the Mediterranean Sea is only 0.82% in surface area and 0.32% in volume as compared to the world ocean. 

As a result, the Mediterranean Sea is considered as a true hotspot of biodiversity [1, 2, 10], even by virtue of the high rates of endeCism it supports (an estimated 20–30% of marine species in the Mediterranean are considered endemic to the Basin.)

How does Tim account for this diversity in the Carribrean and the Mediterranean? Why does the marine biodiversity of the Philippines indicate it is the land of creation when it does not have the most unique species? The diversity of the Philippines is "per unit area" not per species. There are 6x more species in the Caribbean and 25.6% of those are endemic to the Caribbean which means they are not found in the Philippines. Likewise in the Mediterranean there are 8,500 unique species and 20-30% are endemic to that body of water. Why isn't the Caribbean the land of creation when it has more species? Tim does not explain any of this. He has probably not even considered it as he has not bothered to conduct any meaningful research into marine biodiversity. Instead he has taken a study about the Philippines which, as indicated by his lack of reference to it, he has not read and distorted its findings out of all proportion.

Closely tied to his appeal that the Philippines is the center of marine biodiversity on the planet is Tim's claim that there was no ocean before the flood. This claim is not rooted in science but in faith. Specifically faith in the narrative of the apocryphal Jewish text 2 Esdras.

pg. 270

2 Esdras narrows this down to a percentage we can understand. Only one-seventh of the Earth before the Flood was water which is approximately 15%. This is extremely significant as there are many who lose sight that the ocean did not exist at that time but was formed by the flood. 

The reason this matters is Genesis 2 is depicting the only major aqua nerve system on the Earth at that time.

pg. 270-271

 Tim's faith in 2 Esdras leads him to claim that only 1/7th of the earth was water before the flood.

2 Esdras 6:42 Upon the third day thou didst command that the waters should be gathered in the seventh part of the earth: six parts hast thou dried up, and kept them, to the intent that of these some being planted of God and tilled might serve thee.

In 2 Esdras 14 Ezra tell us that the books of Moses were burned up and God gives him a revelation to write them down. In fact he writes down 204 books, 70 of which remain secret.

2 Esdras:14:21: For thy law is burnt, therefore no man knoweth the things that are done of thee, or the work that shall begin.

37: So I took the five men, as he commanded me, and we went into the field, and remained there. 

38: And the next day, behold, a voice called me, saying, Esdras, open thy mouth, and drink that I give thee to drink. 

42: The Highest gave understanding unto the five men, and they wrote the wonderful visions of the night that were told, which they knew not: and they sat forty days, and they wrote in the day, and at night they ate bread. 

43: As for me. I spake in the day, and I held not my tongue by night. 

44: In forty days they wrote two hundred and four books. 

45: And it came to pass, when the forty days were filled, that the Highest spake, saying, The first that thou hast written publish openly, that the worthy and unworthy may read it: 

46: But keep the seventy last, that thou mayest deliver them only to such as be wise among the people: 

47: For in them is the spring of understanding, the fountain of wisdom, and the stream of knowledge. 

48: And I did so.

From this passage we learn that Ezra, inspired by God, dictated the books of Moses plus a lot of other things he withheld. That means faith in this text requires a belief that our current text of Genesis originates from this event and that we are missing a lot of other texts. 

Now let's read Timothy Jay Schwab's interpretation of Genesis 1.

Genesis 1:10 KJV

And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.  

Hebrew:yam: יָם:sea, mighty river (Nile), salt sea.

The Hebrew yam can mean sea but it is also used for mighty river and even the Salt Sea or Dead Sea who is not a sea but a lake. Yam is obviously a generic word referring to a large body of water not narrowing down the specifics nor does such requirement exist. The word is not a definitive word for ocean nor does Genesis 1-6 ever describe an ocean but five mega-rivers which we will locate with perhaps lakes we call basins today.

pg. 271

According to Tim 2 Esdras is history which means Ezra rewrote the writings of Moses at the dictation of God himself. How does Tim explain this nonspecific language in Genesis 1 when 2 Esdras 6 is very specific? How does he explain the differing creation stories between Genesis 1 and 2 Esdras 6? 2 Esdras 6:49-52 relates an interesting narrative about Enoch and Leviathan which is nowhere to be found in Genesis.

49: Then didst thou ordain two living creatures, the one thou calledst Enoch, and the other Leviathan; 

50: And didst separate the one from the other: for the seventh part, namely, where the water was gathered together, might not hold them both.

51: Unto Enoch thou gavest one part, which was dried up the third day, that he should dwell in the same part, wherein are a thousand hills:

52: But unto Leviathan thou gavest the seventh part, namely, the moist; and hast kept him to be devoured of whom thou wilt, and when.

Which Enoch is this? It can't be the "seventh from Adam." Neither Ezra nor Tim explains.

Timothy Jay Schwab's belief that there was no ocean before the flood results in two absurdities. 

The first absurdity, as I pointed out elsewhere, is that is if the Garden of Eden is under the Sulu Sea, as Tim teaches, then that means there was no marine biodiversity in the Sulu Sea before the flood because there was no Sulu Sea until after the flood. So why would marine biodiversity which appears after the flood and not at creation tell us anything about "the land of creation?" This fact alone destroys his ridiculous claim that the Philippines' marine biodiversity indicates the Philippines is "the land of creation."

The second absurdity is that Tim has no explanation for saline waters and the creatures who thrive in them. On this planet there are freshwater ecosystems and there are saltwater ecosystems. The fact is freshwater marine life cannot survive in saltwater and vice versa.

https://www.livescience.com/32167-can-saltwater-fish-live-in-fresh-water.html

Some fish species can live in both freshwater and saltwater. These species are called euryhaline fish. However, most fish species can only survive in one or the other based on their salinity tolerance, or how much salt their bodies can handle. 

Most fish that can only tolerate narrow ranges of salinity and are highly sensitive to any changes in the levels of salt to the water in which they dwell. These fish are known as stenohaline species and include goldfish, which can live only in a freshwater environment. 

Reversely, tuna can exist exclusively in saltwater, according to the NMFS. 

In fact, freshwater fish will often be unable to survive if the salinity levels of their surrounding water reaches more than .05 percent, according to the National Biological Information Infrastructure (NBII).

Tim's thesis that there was no antediluvian world ocean means there would have to be no life which requires the world ocean for its habitat. This includes whales, dolphins, corals, sharks, clownfish, tuna, octopi, squids, and mollusks just to name a few. As Genesis 1 says:

21: And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

22: And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.

Were blue whales, dolphins, sharks, clownfish, tuna, and all the rest swimming around in large freshwater lakes which made up only 1/7 of the earth's surface? And after the flood did they adapt to the salinity of the ocean? Just what is the origin of the world ocean's saline content? For Tim to have a coherent thesis that there was no ocean before the flood he will have to take the above facts into consideration and offer an explanation instead of quickly jumping to mapping out a supposed ancient river system in the ocean trenches.

Most importantly Tim offers no explanation why the waters with the most diversity means that is the land of creation. Like many of his claims it's an unfalsifiable ad hoc hypothesis for which he offers zero explanation. There are 6x more marine species in the Caribbean than in the "center of the center of marine biodiversity." The Philippines may have more species "per unit area" but the Philippines is less diverse in terms of actual species. The waters of the IMPA and the Philippines are simply more crowded.

We also see his scriptural explanations from 2 Esdras do not pan out. Of course 2 Esdras is not scripture and has never been scripture. Nor is it science. It is apocryphal Jewish literature which is certainly not solid ground on which to build a case for anything scientific.