The God Culture: 100 Lies About the Philippines: Lie #31 The Santa Cruz Junk is of Philippine Design

Welcome back to 100 lies the God Culture teaches about the Philippines. Today's lie concerns a the Santa Cruz Junk shipwreck which was found off the coast of Zambales. Timothy Jay Schwab says the ship is of Philippine design and is a Philippine Junk. 

Of course, that is pure junk.

In his book the Search for King Solomon's Treasure Tim writes:

The Search for King Solomon's Treasure, pgs. 142-143

However, there is a shipwreck of what appears to be a returning Philippine-built junk dating prior to the Spanish.

“Due to the extent of the vessel’s preservation, the archaeologists have also been able to understand how the ship was loaded and what kind of goods were stored in its different compartments.”

“...clear evidence that this ship was built in the Philippines.”

– Marine Archaeologist Franck Goddio

The renown French archaeologist says the evidence is clear this was built in the Philippines even according to the way the ship was loaded. Unfortunately, The National Museum of the Philippines suggested this as a Thai ship based largely on Thai artifacts found in the lower cargo holds and the construction both speculation easily challenged. However, that is the published consensus in “suggestion.” The Santa Cruz Junk discovered in 2001 off of Zambales is documented to the 1400s. 

In a now deleted comment on one of his videos Tim elaborates further claiming Marine Archaeologist Franck Goddio said the Santa Cruz is of Philippine design and a Philippine Junk.

A perfect example we cover in The Search For King Solomon's Treasure is the Junk ship found off the coast of Zambales dating to the 1400s. The French Marine Archaeologist who was brought in to study and assess the ship determined it was of Philippine design and a Philippine Junk. Then, the National Museum idiot got ahold of these obvious, proven findings wrapped in a bow as one of the greatest finds in Philippine history and published in a science journal that the ship was a Thai ship because he is part of those who think only shame belongs to the Philippines uneducated in the slightest of ancient history as are most.

None of that is true. The French Marine Archaeologist, Franck Goddio, never said the "Junk was of Philippine design and a Philippine Junk." That is pure junk. What he actually said is the Junk is of Chinese design and was likely built by a Chinese community in the Philippines because it was made of wood found in the Philippines and shipbuilding at that time was forbidden by the Ming Dynasty.

Vessel architecture, date and nature of unearthed material as well as shipwreck location (west of the island of Luzon), make it highly to be a “Chinese” wreck – in the broadest sense of the term, namely travelling to or from China. Certainly built outside of China – most likely in the Philippines – it was loaded with an eclectic cargo of goods from all the major production centres of the Celestial Empire, collected in the harbour warehouses of southern China, but also Siam, Vietnam and elsewhere, before travelling to their final markets .The junk was as “Chinese” as the ships in the western Mediterranean from the imperial era were “Roman”.

The junk was also “Chinese” in its construction, with a hull shaped as a piece of split bamboo, transverse bulkheads with a compartmented hold serving as frame, hull planks joined with iron nails but also, following the traditional hybrid Southern China Sea style, with the keel playing an essential structural role, and using timber of tropical origin. All the wood species used in the construction of the Santa Cruz are found in the Philippine archipelago and most of the islands in the South China Sea, but not in China. The merchants who had chartered it therefore could not belong to the provinces of Fujian and Guangdong, sailing on ships built in China. The essentially “Chinese” architecture seems to rule out the possibility that it was chartered by the peoples of South East Asia, very active on the eastern route between Melaka and Manila Bay (Reid, 1996: 34-35), but who sailed on craft built with local traditional techniques (Manguin, 2001).

Ultimately, given the assumed departure port of the ship, wrecked off the coast of Luzon, and the fact that its ceramics all date from a period when the prohibition to build ships and trade abroad was strictly applied by the Ming, it is highly unlikely that the ship and its charterers were of continental origin. It is much more likely that they belonged to a Chinese community located in the commercial towns of the archipelago. Certainly made in collaboration with local shipbuilders, the junk benefited from their particular expertise. Its construction is consistent with a “tendency to crossing, identified in shipbuilding technology evolution, with a new type of ship in archaeological sites from between the fourteenth and sixteenth centuries, probably coinciding with the increasing role played by Chinese trade and ‘merchant adventurers’ in Southeast Asia” (Manguin, 2001: 15). 

http://www.themua.org/collections/files/original/d983306f20edca8a8e0889272ba30e0b.pdf

The problem is Tim did not read the whole paper. He stopped at the part he liked and went no further. Tim's citation of Goddio is found on page 134 of his Sourcebook.

Tim appends a rather interesting note to this citation.

NOTE: Archaeologist Goddio above writes that there was "clear evidence that this ship was built in the Philippines." He could be wrong yet he continues to publish this 19 years later on his website indicating he did not see evidence which changed this perhaps. It leads us to question this. Using a bit of logic the conclusion already seems to have no basis. If Thai cargo was found in the lower cargo holds, it means they were the first stop on this very clear extensive International route of the Far East. Trade cargo from the nation of origin would not likely be found on the bottom as they would off-load it at every port from the furtherest point which sounds inefficient to us logically. It makes far more sense we are looking at a fully loaded ship returning to the Philippines in which it likely got caught in a storm and could not make it to shore. It is very odd that all the junks found in the Philippines are dismissed away as belonging to other countries and the Philippine history ignored by their own community of archaeologists it appears. It begs whether they have accurately attributed most of these in fact including the Lena Shoal. WE HAVE NOT EXAMINED THESE BUT THIS IS WORTH FURTHER RESEARCH. This is a discipline which typically sticks in it's paradigm and interprets only based on such paradigm. This is how they lost Ophir and cannot find it nor will they ever until one comes along outside of the box and thinks things through outside of such false paradigms. Good news, that someone is here. 

Tim says outright he has not even fully examined the case of the Santa Cruz or the Lena Shoal Junks. Then, after saying these archaeologists operate within a false paradigm and someone is needed to think outside of the box, with an air of pride he proclaims: 

Good news, that someone is here. 

How ridiculous.

What is needed is not someone who thinks outside the box but someone who can actually take the time to research everything related to his thesis and someone who actually reads through the papers he cites. Tim is not that person. He reads and quotes selectively and does not bother to thoroughly research anything. We see this time and again which is why I am convinced there is no God Culture team. 

The fact is French Marine Archaeologist, Franck Goddio says the Santa Cruz Junk is of Chinese design. Though it was likely built in the Philippines it was not built by natives but by a Chinese community located in the Philippines. It is not only more bad research but one more lie about the Philippines taught by Timothy Jay Schwab who is The God Culture. 

The God Culture: Mocked By Duterte

While looking over old files I found something I had not yet posted from Timothy Jay Schwab who is The God Culture. Tim says he met Duterte, gave him a copy of The Search for King Solomon's Treasure and then Duterte proceeded to mock him.

Excellent point. We found the President whom we met very hesitant and already ridiculing as he was programmed from the initial discussion admitting he studied to be a Catholic Priest. He was already ridiculing the Bible narrative he doesn't believe even claiming the 440 talents of gold is somehow allegory. Last we checked, when someone tells us they had 15.75 tons of gold, they are recording specifics most certainly that could never be defined as allegory. He, then, wanted to know where the gold was basically ridiculing the narrative as he is unaware of the amount of gold in his own country. We retracted and offered an advanced copy of the book with sourcebook in which he promised to read. He never did.

This is part of a larger conversation which has been deleted by Tim. 

Answers in First Enoch Part 10: Bible History of the Garden of Eden. Affirming Enoch's Geography

Mikee Abe: TGC, this is my suggestion. Please write/inform the PH National Historical Commission about the ancient name of the Philippines.

Present to the said Commission the historical/biblical facts concerning the real name of the Philippines which is OPHIR, and at the same time, the location of the Garden of Eden, which is in Ophir. YAHWEH, OUR GOD, KNOWS ABOUT THIS! GOD BLESS YOU, MEN and WOMEN of TGC!

The God Culture: We have and they refuse to read it. They have no interest in restoring Philippine History. Yah Bless.

Wavemaker: Most probably it is because the info is too shocking for them that it sounds ridiculous. They are uninformed after all. | think the other way around this is to talk to the senator who is in charge of the history or culture. He is influential enough to dictate how the textbooks will be written.

The God Culture: Excellent point. We found the President whom we met very hesitant and already ridiculing as he was programmed from the initial discussion admitting he studied to be a Catholic Priest. He was already ridiculing the Bible narrative he doesn't believe even claiming the 440 talents of gold is somehow allegory. Last we checked, when someone tells us they had 15.75 tons of gold, they are recording specifics most certainly that could never be defined as allegory. He, then, wanted to know where the gold was basically ridiculing the narrative as he is unaware of the amount of gold in his own country. We retracted and offered an advanced copy of the book with sourcebook in which he promised to read. He never did.

This is the problem with academia, the smarter they are, the dumber they become as if any of us thinks we know everything and stop learning, we enter the paradigm of being left behind in knowledge. We see this in the church as well as many grasp onto church doctrine and stop there never testing with what should be our source, The Bible.

Imagine what the Filipino ancestors would have thought of those who become puppets in thinking for the very conquerors that stole, raped, and even killed their children. Yet, these are trying hard to become a part of the Great Society today or in other words the One World Government of Gog of Magog. A perfect example we cover in The Search For King Solomon's Treasure is the Junk ship found off the coast of Zambales dating to the 1400s. The French Marine Archaeologist who was brought in to study and assess the ship determined it was of Philippine design and a Philippine Junk. Then, the National Museum idiot got ahold of these obvious, proven findings wrapped in a bow as one of the greatest finds in Philippine history and published in a science journal that the ship was a Thai ship because he is part of those who think only shame belongs to the Philippines uneducated in the slightest of ancient history as are most. We could all blame him and others at National Museum and National Historical for thinking like fools but the root is the problem. The conquerors control the education system still and must be rooted out. Yah bless.

Not only did Tim gift a copy of his book to Duterte but he also sent a copy to the National Historic Commission of the Philippines. They expressed no interest in his work. Tim says that's because they are not interested in restoring Philippine history. The then goes on to relate the discovery of a Junk ship found off the coast of Zambales. According to Tim:

The French Marine Archaeologist who was brought in to study and assess the ship determined it was of Philippine design and a Philippine Junk. Then, the National Museum idiot got ahold of these obvious, proven findings wrapped in a bow as one of the greatest finds in Philippine history and published in a science journal that the ship was a Thai ship because he is part of those who think only shame belongs to the Philippines uneducated in the slightest of ancient history as are most. 

None of that is true. The French Marine Archaeologist, Franck Goddio, never said the "Junk was of Philippine design and a Philippine Junk." That is pure junk. What he actually said is the Junk is of Chinese design and was likely built by a Chinese community in the Philippines because it was made of wood found in the Philippines and shipbuilding at that time was forbidden by the Ming Dynasty.

Vessel architecture, date and nature of unearthed material as well as shipwreck location (west of the island of Luzon), make it highly to be a “Chinese” wreck – in the broadest sense of the term, namely travelling to or from China. Certainly built outside of China – most likely in the Philippines – it was loaded with an eclectic cargo of goods from all the major production centres of the Celestial Empire, collected in the harbour warehouses of southern China, but also Siam, Vietnam and elsewhere, before travelling to their final markets .The junk was as “Chinese” as the ships in the western Mediterranean from the imperial era were “Roman”.

The junk was also “Chinese” in its construction, with a hull shaped as a piece of split bamboo, transverse bulkheads with a compartmented hold serving as frame, hull planks joined with iron nails but also, following the traditional hybrid Southern China Sea style, with the keel playing an essential structural role, and using timber of tropical origin. All the wood species used in the construction of the Santa Cruz are found in the Philippine archipelago and most of the islands in the South China Sea, but not in China. The merchants who had chartered it therefore could not belong to the provinces of Fujian and Guangdong, sailing on ships built in China. The essentially “Chinese” architecture seems to rule out the possibility that it was chartered by the peoples of South East Asia, very active on the eastern route between Melaka and Manila Bay (Reid, 1996: 34-35), but who sailed on craft built with local traditional techniques (Manguin, 2001).

Ultimately, given the assumed departure port of the ship, wrecked off the coast of Luzon, and the fact that its ceramics all date from a period when the prohibition to build ships and trade abroad was strictly applied by the Ming, it is highly unlikely that the ship and its charterers were of continental origin. It is much more likely that they belonged to a Chinese community located in the commercial towns of the archipelago. Certainly made in collaboration with local shipbuilders, the junk benefited from their particular expertise. Its construction is consistent with a “tendency to crossing, identified in shipbuilding technology evolution, with a new type of ship in archaeological sites from between the fourteenth and sixteenth centuries, probably coinciding with the increasing role played by Chinese trade and ‘merchant adventurers’ in Southeast Asia” (Manguin, 2001: 15). 

http://www.themua.org/collections/files/original/d983306f20edca8a8e0889272ba30e0b.pdf

The problem is Tim did not read the whole paper. He stopped at the part he liked and went no further. Tim's citation of Goddio is found on page 134 of his Sourcebook.

Tim appends a rather interesting note to this citation.

NOTE: Archaeologist Goddio above writes that there was "clear evidence that this ship was built in the Philippines." He could be wrong yet he continues to publish this 19 years later on his website indicating he did not see evidence which changed this perhaps. It leads us to question this. Using a bit of logic the conclusion already seems to have no basis. If Thai cargo was found in the lower cargo holds, it means they were the first stop on this very clear extensive International route of the Far East. Trade cargo from the nation of origin would not likely be found on the bottom as they would off-load it at every port from the furtherest point which sounds inefficient to us logically. It makes far more sense we are looking at a fully loaded ship returning to the Philippines in which it likely got caught in a storm and could not make it to shore. It is very odd that all the junks found in the Philippines are dismissed away as belonging to other countries and the Philippine history ignored by their own community of archaeologists it appears. It begs whether they have accurately attributed most of these in fact including the Lena Shoal. WE HAVE NOT EXAMINED THESE BUT THIS IS WORTH FURTHER RESEARCH. This is a discipline which typically sticks in it's paradigm and interprets only based on such paradigm. This is how they lost Ophir and cannot find it nor will they ever until one comes along outside of the box and thinks things through outside of such false paradigms. Good news, that someone is here. 

Tim says outright he has not even fully examined the case of the Santa Cruz or the Lena Shoal Junks. Then, after saying these archaeologists operate within a false paradigm and someone is needed to think outside of the box, with an air of pride he proclaims: 

Good news, that someone is here. 

How ridiculous.

What is needed is not someone who thinks outside the box but someone who can actually take the time to research everything related to his thesis and someone who actually reads through the papers he cites. Tim is not that person. He reads and quotes selectively and does not bother to throughly research anything. We see this time and again which is why I am convinced there is no God Culture team. 

Since Tim does not want to do the research I will give him a hand. The Lena Shoal and Santa Cruz Junks share the same type of construction.

The Lena Shoal and the Santa Cruz were ships that belong to the South China Sea Shipbuilding Tradition. Both exhibit features of the Chinese shipbuilding technique (bulkheads, iron nails) and the Southeast Asian shipbuilding techniques (v-shaped hull, planks edge-joined with wooden dowels).

This is one reason Bobby Orillandea writes the Santa Cruz could be from Thailand. 

From the results of the origin and placement of the cargo, it was suggested that the Santa Cruz could have originated in Thailand, which is further supported by both the shipbuilding construction technique that developed in the area during this period (Flecker 2005), which matches the hull of the Lena Shoal wreck, and presence of Thai stoneware jars in the lower cargo holds.

https://journals.openedition.org/moussons/3529?lang=en

Both paragraphs come from the same paper which Tim cites in his sourcebook. Once again we see he did not read through the whole paper to understand why Orillandea thought the ship could have originated in Thailand. The reasons are the construction of the ship as well as the contents of its cargo. But Tim is focused on the cargo and not the construction of the ship. He has completely missed the point. Instead of trying to understand he defamed Orillandea by calling him an idiot who thinks "only shame belongs to the Philippines uneducated in the slightest of ancient history as are most."

In a paper titled "Shifting patterns of glass bead cargo of 15th – 17th century Philippines shipwrecks" authors Jennifer Craig and Laure Dussubieux combine the statements of Goddio and Orillaneda.

.

In 2003 an excavation off Santa Cruz Island, close to Zambales of Luzon (Orillaneda 2003), was conducted on a shipwreck hull identified as a hybrid South China Sea Shipbuilding Tradition (Goddio et al. 2014:8, 10; Orillaneda 2003; Orillaneda 2012, 2016a, 2016b). The shipbuilding technique is seemingly Chinese but the materials are from the Southeast Asia archipelago (Orillaneda 2016a). Pointedly, scholars surmise the ship was built by Chinese diaspora in the Philippines (Goddio et al. 2014:8, 10; Manguin 2001:15) or Thailand (Flecker 2005; Orillaneda 2016b).

The Elemental Analysis of Glass Beads, pg, 178

See how these two ladies cite several papers to bolster their research? That is the complete opposite of what Tim does. Timothy Jay Schwab who is The God Culture is no researcher. 

The God Culture: Romeo and Juliet is the Story of Adam and Eve

Timothy Jay Schwab who is The God Culture has found a new champion in David Whited of Flyover Conservatives. David is so enamored with Tim that he calls him "a phenomenal teacher, a kind of a renaissance man, a biblical scholar, a researcher, an entrepreneur" which is all quite hilarious. Tim is first and foremost an adman who graduated with a marketing degree and is far from being a Bible scholar. If you have read this series about The God Culture you know it is abundantly evident that Tim is no researcher as he fudges some information and ignores other information detrimental to his cause. It goes without saying that "a phenomenal teacher" does not shut down discussion by calling people names, blocking them, and ignoring criticism. 

In this second interview with David Whited Tim gives his same presentation stating the same ridiculous lies as are contained in his videos and books. However, he says two things that are interesting. First he gives his opinion about Shakespeare claiming he lifted Romeo and Juliet from the Bible. 

https://flyover.live/e/shocking-facts-about-the-largest-structure-ever-built-by-man-ep-40

8:21 And, you know, even Shakespeare, he borrowed from Adam and Eve. What's Romeo and Juliet? It's the story of Adam and Eve. In the physical, of course, they died spiritually, but still, at the same point, you know, they both ate of the fruit and they both died, tragedy, you know, in that sense. So, yeah.

Historically this is totally wrong. While Shakespeare liberally borrowed from many sources for his plays Romeo and Juliet is NOT an adaptation of the story of Adam and Eve. 

Romeo and Juliet borrows from a tradition of tragic love stories dating back to antiquity. One of these is Pyramus and Thisbe, from Ovid's Metamorphoses, which contains parallels to Shakespeare's story: the lovers' parents despise each other, and Pyramus falsely believes his lover Thisbe is dead. The Ephesiaca of Xenophon of Ephesus, written in the 3rd century, also contains several similarities to the play, including the separation of the lovers, and a potion that induces a deathlike sleep.

The earliest known version of the Romeo and Juliet tale akin to Shakespeare's play is the story of Mariotto and Ganozza by Masuccio Salernitano, in the 33rd novel of his Il Novellino published in 1476. Salernitano sets the story in Siena and insists its events took place in his own lifetime. His version of the story includes the secret marriage, the colluding friar, the fray where a prominent citizen is killed, Mariotto's exile, Ganozza's forced marriage, the potion plot, and the crucial message that goes astray. In this version, Mariotto is caught and beheaded and Ganozza dies of grief. 

Luigi da Porto (1485–1529) adapted the story as Giulietta e Romeo and included it in his Historia novellamente ritrovata di due nobili amanti (A Newly-Discovered History of two Noble Lovers), written in 1524 and published posthumously in 1531 in Venice.

In his 1562 narrative poem The Tragical History of Romeus and Juliet, Arthur Brooke translated Boaistuau faithfully but adjusted it to reflect parts of Chaucer's Troilus and Criseyde. There was a trend among writers and playwrights to publish works based on Italian novelle—Italian tales were very popular among theatre-goers—and Shakespeare may well have been familiar with William Painter's 1567 collection of Italian tales titled Palace of Pleasure. This collection included a version in prose of the Romeo and Juliet story named "The goodly History of the true and constant love of Romeo and Juliett". Shakespeare took advantage of this popularity: The Merchant of Venice, Much Ado About Nothing, All's Well That Ends Well, Measure for Measure, and Romeo and Juliet are all from Italian novelle. Romeo and Juliet is a dramatization of Brooke's translation, and Shakespeare follows the poem closely but adds detail to several major and minor characters (the Nurse and Mercutio in particular).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romeo_and_Juliet#Sources

It is not surprising that Tim is ignorant of Shakepseaere's sources for Romeo and Juliet. His remarks about Dante's Divine Comedy being a mockery of the Book of Enoch shows that he is not familiar with literature.

"And Dante creates a fictional version of himself." Who, who's he copying here? Think about it."Who travels through the furthest reaches of hell, inferno, purgatory, purgatorio and paradise, paradiso. Uh, what is Dante doing? Well he's replacing and mocking Enoch's journey with his own. What an idiot. And the church bought it because they prefer the occult view over that of the Bible. That's fact. Dante did not make up anything really though. He just replaced Enoch with an occult view of himself of course, uh, and that's really it. I mean the guy's an idiot. He, he didn't do anything, okay? Maybe his poem, you know, maybe it rhymes well. I don't know but whatever it does or doesn't do, whether it is a masterpiece of sort, what makes it of such importance is it's a linchpin in time in infusing the occult into the church. Oh, good job there buddy.

https://philippinefails.blogspot.com/2022/07/the-god-culture-big-mistakes-where-do.html

As silly as this remark is what is important to note is WHY Tim thinks Shakespeare adapted Adam and Eve into Romeo and Juliet:

they both ate of the fruit and they both died 

That is not true either because Romeo drank poison and Juliet stabbed herself but I digress. Tim sees a man and a woman in love and dying together. Adam and Eve were a man and a woman who died together after they ate from the tree. Ergo Romeo and Juliet is Adam and Eve. In his book Rest: The Case for Sabbath Tim writes:

“Many assume Adam was evil and there is no evidence he ever sinned after he was tricked in the Garden. He made the conscious decision to willfully sin no doubt. However, Adam only ate the fruit after he saw the love of his life do so. He knew she would fall and no longer be with him if so. His eating the fruit is the greatest love story.” 

https://philippinefails.blogspot.com/2021/09/the-god-culture-rest-case-for-sabbath.html

The fall of man is not a tragedy plunging all of humanity into the bondage of sin, death, and the devil but "the greatest love story." Incredible.

This kind of exegesis permeates Tim's teaching. 

For instance his teaching about the fruit of the tree of knowledge and evil. He believes an old Filipino tale mentions that fruit because it is about a fruit that is poisonous.

Lanzones appears to be the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil in Enoch's description as it is a perfect fit in every way. Could there be such a history that Lanzones could be poison?

Lanzones originates in the Tagalog word Lason for "poison to morals or mind." This is perfectly fitting an very similar to the Hebrew "Lashon" which denotes essentially a poison tongue in some applications and even a golden wedge or bar in others tying to Ophir and Havilah. To the right, you will notice insets of the Carob and Lanzones Trees. Notice the leaves and branches revery similar as Enoch recorded. The Lanzones fruit certainly appears as grapes growing on a tree as described.

According to this oral legend passed through generations in Laguna, Lanzones was once known to be poison. Where might a legend like that derive? The Book of Enoch yet again? An angel removed the poison and the tree was good to eat after that. Of course, this is a legend and there is no need to verify the story as much as we realize, legends like this usually have some sort of basis in ancient events many times. In this case, this happens to match what Enoch was describing in the Book of Enoch. Thus, we believe there is a connection.

https://philippinefails.blogspot.com/2021/01/the-god-culture-stuff-god-culture.html

One thing is like another therefore it is that thing. Never mind the fact that God did not prohibit Adam and Eve from eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil because it was poisonous. Enoch says the fruit of the tree looks like grapes, lanzones look like grapes, and there is a legend that an angel removed the poison from the fruit making it good to eat. Ergo, the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil is lanzones.

Tim is most guilty of this kind of reasoning when comparing Hebrew with Tagalog. Here is Tim's definition of the Philippine place-name Samar.

...Samar likely named for Samaria.

Samar Island:

Hebrew name: סָמַר he/it bristled. Past Tense 

Bristled in English: 

1 (of hair or fur) stand upright away from the skin, as a sign of anger or fear. 2 react angrily or defensively. 3 (bristle with) be covered with or abundant in 

Our Interpretation: Standing Upright in Righteous Anger in Abundance

https://philippinefails.blogspot.com/2021/01/the-god-culture-search-for-king.html

It is important to never forget Tim says:

5:06 We are not linguists nor do we care to be

Lost Tribes Series Part 2F: Decoding the Butuan Ivory Seal - Evidence

The second interesting thing Tim says is related to his belief in the truth of the Bible. 

8:21 So look, I get it, many of us grew up in churches. I come from a Bible background since I was five years old. I get it. And I used to just not really pay attention to the Old Testament, because in my mind, I found a lot of these things, like we're gonna cover right now, I found them to be unbelievable. I mean, how could they build a building that was three, four or five times as tall as the tallest building on earth? That's impossible, right?

1:22:19 So anyway, back to the book of Jubilees, there's so much here. Obviously, it gives us the detail of the Tower of Babel that now makes sense. For the first time in my life. I can read the Tower of Babel's story and believe it as it's written. Wow.

Tim says when he was younger he ignored the Old Testament because he found it, the story of the Tower of Babel specifically, to be unbelievable. But now he can believe that story "as it's written" because he has read the Book of Jubilees. And there's the rub, as Shakespeare's Hamlet says. Tim simply does not believe the Bible "as it's written." He needs the additional book of Jubilees.

Of course he will deflect by saying Jubilees is part of the Bible which has been censored by the Church and the Jews. It was found amongst the Dead Sea Scrolls and that is the TRUE BIBLE CANON. He will say, with nothing to back up the claim, Genesis requires a second witness. That witness is Jubilees despite the fact it contradicts Genesis at many points. Is Tim unaware that in multiple instances both Old and New Testaments refer to Genesis? Jesus cited or referred to Genesis many times. Here is one example.

Matthew 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

5:And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

Are the words of Jesus Christ not witness enough? Apparently not. 

We can definitely expect more interviews with Timothy Jay Schwab who is The God Culture and David Whited of Flyover Conservatives. What crazy or revelatory thing will Tim say next? Stay tuned!

The God Culture: Jesus is the Only Begotten Son Meaning Birthed in the Flesh by a Woman

While it is true that Timothy Jay Schwab who is The God Culture believes Jesus is the Son of God his doctrine of what that means exactly is quite heterodox. Rather than Christ being the eternally begotten Son of God Tim teaches Jesus is the only begotten Son because he was born in the flesh. Let's hear him and then break down why he is wrong. 

5:45 "But he that said unto him," Who's that? Yahuah. "Thou art my son. Today have I begotten thee." Now we know Yahusha is the only begotten son meaning birthed in the flesh by a woman but he existed prior.

Order of Melchizedek. The New Testament & Qumran Scrolls. Answers In Jubilees 38

42:54 Why is Yahusha the only begotten son of Yahuah? Angels are called sons of Elohim or beneha Elohim. Uh, they're not begotten see they were not birthed they were created or really from the breath of Yahuah. We're going to get there. We know Enoch visited heaven and saw Yahusha there in spirit so he existed. Again, watch our Melchizedek videos as well as Answers in first Enoch especially the son of man. Awesome video, uh, that one of the most beautiful parts of first Enoch is his encounter seeing Messiah who was not even in the flesh yet thousands of years before in heaven. Wow! That was before the flood but Yahusha has been always since the beginning, right? Oh, wait a minute but that's that's, that's not anything strange to scripture because He said so right in Revelation. He said I am the Alpha and the Omega the beginning and the end. He has no beginning nor an end as Melchizedek the priest in an order of one because he's the only that could possibly qualify.  

44:10 So, how can He be the only begotten Son? Now, many try to go all the way back to creation and redefine what he was there but see we know Enoch saw the Son of Man in heaven and he was a spirit he was not in the flesh he was not begotten at creation he still wasn't, uh, you know almost a thousand years later or so so he wasn't begotten at creation. See, he was begotten in the days of Mary. We know this. That shouldn't be a surprise but again check your paradigm. Not sure how scholars can seem to read and understand that because it's really not that difficult but we've all been trapped in this paradigm of thinking that that meant somehow he had to have been birthed. Well, what a first time to be birthed again by Mary? Well, that's nonsense. I mean you know these things. Just logically think it through. It's, it's really easy to dispel, uh, unfortunately what is scholarship to many. This is in the New Testament and He is begotten entering Mary's womb and birth like the rest of us humans thus begotten. That's what that word always means in scripture. Talk about overcomplicating and there's so much of that we have to work through. They're trying to go back to creation and claim Yahuah had a child in the human sense. Uh, no that has always been erroneous and again Elohim is the Father and the Son in the beginning and really before that. That was the first day of creation

Restoring Creation Part 12 Who Is Elohim Gen. 11 Understood. First Day

Essentially Tim is denying the Eternal Sonship of Christ. Rather than Jesus being eternally begotten, according to Tim His begottenness relates to his birth in the flesh. Yet Tim says "the Father and the Son existed in the beginning and really before that." How did Jesus exist as Son before creation if His sonship is related to His fleshly birth? Tim does not say. 

The problem is the Bible says Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever. 

That means the relationship between the Son and the Father is unchanging. There was NEVER a time that Christ was not the eternally begotten Son of God. To claim as Tim does that Christ's begottenness is a new characteristic related to his birth in the flesh and not an essential and unchanging part of His relationship to the Father is to say Jesus is NOT the same yesterday, and today, and forever.  It is to deny who Christ is. 

It is very evident that Tim does not understand the doctrine of the eternal Sonship of Christ when he says:

They're trying to go back to creation and claim Yahuah had a child in the human sense. 

Who says this? Nobody. Tim is making it up. In fact this very objection Tim is making was brought up in the time of St. Gregory of Nyssa.

The Father is the Begetter and the Emitter; without passion of course, and without reference to time, and not in a corporeal manner. 

Third Theological Oration 

It is quite obvious The Father did not beget the Son "in the human sense." The very idea is ridiculous and the one making the objection simply shows he does not understand. Gregory says further:

IV. But how can this generation be passionless? In that it is incorporeal. For if corporeal generation involves passion, incorporeal generation excludes it.

But, the objector says, the very form of the expression He begot and He was begotten, brings in the idea of a beginning of generation. But what if you do not use this expression, but say, He had been begotten from the beginning so as readily to evade your far-fetched and time-loving objections? Will you bring Scripture against us, as if we were forging something contrary to Scripture and to the truth? Why, every one knows that in practice we very often find tenses interchanged when time is spoken of; and especially is this the custom of Holy Scripture, not only in respect of the past tense, and of the present; but even of the future, as for instance Why did the heathen rage? when they had not yet raged and they shall cross over the river on foot, where the meaning is they did cross over. It would be a long task to reckon up all the expressions of this kind which students have noticed.

The generation, begetting, of the Son of God is both passionless and incorporeal. It is asinine to think God would generate a son "in the human sense" because that would involve passion and corporealness which are attributes God does not posses. 

Finally Gregory says:

VIII. How then was He begotten? This Generation would have been no great thing, if you could have comprehended it who have no real knowledge even of your own generation, or at least who comprehend very little of it, and of that little you are ashamed to speak; and then do you think you know the whole? You will have to undergo much labour before you discover the laws of composition, formation, manifestation, and the bond whereby soul is united to body — mind to soul, and reason to mind; and movement, increase, assimilation of food, sense, memory, recollection, and all the rest of the parts of which you are compounded; and which of them belongs to the soul and body together, and which to each independently of the other, and which is received from each other. For those parts whose maturity comes later, yet received their laws at the time of conception. 

Tell me what these laws are? And do not even then venture to speculate on the Generation of God; for that would be unsafe. For even if you knew all about your own, yet you do not by any means know about God's. And if you do not understand your own, how can you know about God's? For in proportion as God is harder to trace out than man, so is the heavenly Generation harder to comprehend than your own. But if you assert that because you cannot comprehend it, therefore He cannot have been begotten, it will be time for you to strike out many existing things which you cannot comprehend; and first of all God Himself. For you cannot say what He is, even if you are very reckless, and excessively proud of your intelligence. First, cast away your notions of flow and divisions and sections, and your conceptions of immaterial as if it were material birth, and then you may perhaps worthily conceive of the Divine Generation. How was He begotten?— I repeat the question in indignation. The Begetting of God must be honoured by silence. It is a great thing for you to learn that He was begotten. But the manner of His generation we will not admit that even Angels can conceive, much less you. Shall I tell you how it was? It was in a manner known to the Father Who begot, and to the Son Who was begotten. Anything more than this is hidden by a cloud, and escapes your dim sight.

Gregory's answer to those who deny the eternal generation of the Son of God because they do not understand it is indignation. 

Tim is a simple minded fool who denies the eternal generation of the Son of God because he does not understand it. He mocks those who believe it by claiming they teach the Father had a Son "in the human sense." Yet his teaching that Jesus is begotten because he took on flesh and was born introduces change to the one who is unchangeable. It is a subtle denial of the divinity of Christ. 

Not only that but the scriptures tell us exactly how Psalm 2:7, You are my son, this day have I begotten thee, is fulfilled. It is fulfilled in the resurrection. 

Romans 1:4 explains this even further by telling us the meaning is not that Christ became the Son on the day he resurrected but the event declared it for all the world to see. His Sonship is eternal but on that particular day His Sonship was revealed to the whole world by the resurrection.

It seems Tim is unaware of these scriptures which perfectly explain Psalm 2:7. And this is coming from a man who has been a Bible teacher for 30 years!

Timothy Jay Schwab's entire theological system is heretical. From denying the Holy Spirit is Divine, to denying the Trinity, and now denying that Jesus Christ is the eternally begotten Son of God it is more than clear that Tim has no idea who God is. 

The God Culture: The Garden of Eden Revealed Book Review

Timothy Jay Schwab who is the God Culture has released a new book titled The Garden of Eden Revealed: The book of Maps. This time around Tim is placing all his nonexistent cartographical skills on display as he examines 75+ maps proving that the Garden of Eden is in the Philippines. The problem is that, according to Tim, the Garden of Eden was submerged beneath the floor of the Sulu Sea during the flood which means NO MAP can ever tell us where the Garden is located nor is the Garden of Eden actually in the Philippines. 

Oddly enough Tim has declined to release an e-book PDF version because the maps are high resolution. That is no excuse as there are plenty of high-res maps available on the internet including those he employs. Where do you think he got the maps in this book? Since there are 75+ maps it would be too unwieldy to review every one in detail so I shall concentrate on summarizing the obvious errors and lies which are numerous and leap off every page.

First it should be noted that no map showing paradise was charted in order to give its precise geographical location. According to the author of Mapping Paradise, Alessandro Scafi:

Topological mapping, based as it is on internal reciprocal rather than external relationships between units (temporal events as well as spatial features) can reach a rigour and a rationality of its own. The topological characteristics of medieval mappae mundi (and of many other kinds of map, modern as well as medieval) have to be grasped if they — and, above al, the presence of paradise on them —are to be properly understood. Thus, the first thing to bear in mind when looking at paradise on a medieval mappa mundi is that this kind of map was not created to inform the observer of the precise latitude, longitude and size of the Garden of Eden, but to demonstrate its contiguity to the inhabited earth.

In structuring their maps, then, all medieval map makers (except those responsible for nautical charts) were working to fundamentally different principles from those of their modern counter parts.

Mapping Paradise, pg. 87

According to Scafi map makers who placed Paradise on their maps did so with the knowledge that Eden was geographically inaccessible. In fact such maps incorporated Eden and other Biblically important locales to show forth "a corresponding geography of salvation."

The challenge for the Christian compilers of maps was to combine geographical knowledge with the biblical world view. Belief in an earthly Eden urged them to render visible in their world maps a place that was geographically inaccessible (yet linked to the inhabited earth by the four rivers) and remote in time (yet still relevant as the scene of an essential episode of salvation history). A process of Christianisation of classical geography had been taking place since the early centuries of the Christian era. Traditional geographical ideas about the dimensions of the globe, its division into parts and the listing of the peoples and provinces of the inhabited world were adopted and refined to accommodate Christian themes, a process in which the Garden of Eden featured prominently.

For the scribes and artists responsible for the maps, the history of salvation brought about a corresponding geography of salvation. Most of the biblical places – specific points on earth where, according to the Bible, God’s intervention had taken place – were locatable in well known regions. Although very different from our modern representations of the earth, however, medieval maps were not devotional, pastoral or theological documents. Nor were they tools of religious propaganda or sermons in visual form. Rather, they were representations of the world according to a particular conception, one that took into account the scriptural text and the teachings of the Christian faith. Assessed on their own terms, the medieval maps of the world were in fact no less scientific than any other type of map.

Maps of Paradise, pg, 46

This would explain why Jerusalem is the center of the earth on these maps. That is where Jesus Christ died, resurrected, and ascended into heaven. The death and resurrection of Christ is the center of our salvation and the Garden of Eden is the beginning of mankind from which all proceeds. Keeping these things in mind, that maps locating the Garden of Eden in the east are symbolical and not precise geography, let us see what Tim has to say about the maps in his book. 

In chapter one Tim writes:

Can the Garden of Eden be located? We have heard this question often but it is the wrong query. We should be asking: Did the ancients know at least roughly the region which house this earthly Paradise? If so, who were their markers associated and how do we accurately transpose those onto our modern maps?

Garden of Eden Revealed, pg. 10

Thus Tim is going to be interpreting all the maps he uses showing the Garden of Eden in the East and on the Earth as being literal. The main marker for finding the Garden is gold. That means the location of Garden is below a land full of gold and other treasures. If one finds the land of gold one finds the Garden of Eden.

If the ancients knew that the Garden was locked up and no longer accessible, why were they obsessed with its location? Why search for it at all? Again, it is covered within the Earth under the land of gold, pearl, and onyx stone which Ophir and brothers returned to this land after the Flood.

pg. 24-25

This literalism leads Tim to declare the removal of Eden from modern maps during the Renaissance is part of a conspiracy to hide the Garden of Eden.

The Hebrew language was certainly equating this, but we kept noticing map after map that identified the area of the Philippines Southeast of China, which is a huge marker, and one that does not really move in the transition to a new map format in the so-called Renaissance. It is incredible how much knowledge was lost in this shift which in this arena, was a continuation and even deepening of the Dark Ages.

pg. 5

As ever with Tim the British are the main culprits behind the changing of the maps and the removal of The Garden of Eden.

Of course, the illiterate British paradigm which walks back history a thousand years, knows very little of these concepts because they choose so. Their feigned unfamiliarity spouted by one historian after another is not a debate point. We do not give credence to childish debate from those who cannot even read because they concede as a group to ignore the very references that claim to disseminate in propaganda. That's a worthless colonial view steeped in the worst racism in history. Oops!

pg. 39

Why are medieval maps so different from modern maps? Why did they place the Garden of Eden in the Far East? Because they were working from the perspective of Noah and Enoch. 

However, in creating these ancient maps, they were really applying this same perspective, knowingly or not. Enoch is the origin and accurately so.

pg. 32

Noah understood the world from his grandfather Enoch and together, they represent the entire origin of this perspective continued through the ages until fairly recently when they lost the Garden of Eden and land of gold.

pg. 39

To claim that these medieval map makers were working from the perspective of Noah and Enoch is total balderdash and is to rip them from their context and put them in Tim's context. According to Tim in Noah and Enoch's perspective the earth is flat, the North Pole is the center of the world, and there are antipodes, i.e. North and South America and Australia. We see none of that on these medieval mappae mundai. Aside from that the Books of Enoch and Jubilees were never a part of the canon and never in use until recently. To interpret these maps literally via Enoch and Jubilees is to not understand them. Remember according to Alessandro Scafi, a real scholar who has actually analyzed medieval maps showing the Garden of Eden:

the history of salvation brought about a corresponding geography of salvation.

Thus these maps are symbolic.

The rest of this book is the same old junk Timothy Jay Schwab spews in all his videos. He spends a great deal of time going over the locations of Chryse and Argyre, the Aurea Chersonese, Ophir, and Tarshish. One could say this book is a bait and switch because rather than revealing the location of the Garden of Eden by analyzing medieval maps alone Tim merely uses those maps as a prop to regurgitate the same old information he has already produced in his videos about the Philippines being the ancient land of gold to which all nations flocked for riches. And all of it is wrong.

There are the same errors about the location of Cattigara, the provenance of Martin Behaim's map, and  the identification of the Lequios. For instance Tim has drawn a map allegedly showing that the Spanish mapped the route to Ophir which ended in the Philippines. 

pg. 104-105

But as I have proven many times in this blog the Lequios are NOT the same as the Lucoes. The Lequios are situated farther north near Japan and are what we know today as the Ryukyu Islands. Tim shows a map with this very identification and calls it propaganda.

pg. 106

Portion of Maris Pacific by Abraham Ortelius. This map was published in 1589 in his Theatrum Orbis Terrarum. It was not only the first printed map of the Pacific, but it also showed the Americas for the first time. Luzon was Lequios before Taiwan was given the Philippines name just as Japan was given such. It is propaganda.

Does Tim not see there are the Lequios grande and Lequios pequenno? That is NOT Taiwan. Those are the Ryukyu Islands! Ferdinand Pinto was shipwrecked on those islands and placed them at 29 degrees north. 

In this manner we departed from Pungor the capital City of the Island of Lequios, of which I will here make a brief relation, to the end that if it shall one day please God to inspire the Portugal Nation, principally for the exaltation and increase of the Catholick faith, and next for the great benefit that may redound thereof, to undertake the Conquest of this Island, they may know where first to begin, as also the commodities of it, and the easiness of this Conquest. We must understand then that this Island of Lequios, scituated in nine and twenty degrees, is two hundred leagues in circuit, threescore in length, and thirty in bredth.

Pinto, pg. 188

How can Tim be trusted to correctly interpret the maps in this book when any map which contradicts him is brushed off as propaganda and he ignores what Fernando Pinto actually wrote? How can he be trusted to interpret the linguistics of these maps when he still confuses and conflates Lucoes and Lequios being unaware that they do not refer to the same peoples? They are not even pronounced the same as the "c" in Lucoes is soft and not hard. The answer is he cannot and should not be trusted with the task. 

There are many more of the same errors in this book but it is not worth the time to go through all of them.

The bottom line is Timothy Jay Schwab's book The Garden of Eden Revealed is wholly worthless as he is not interested in understanding the maps locating paradise within their proper milieu. Instead Tim wrenches these maps out of all context bescumbering them with his erroneous interpretations as propaganda for the Philippines all the while rudely excoriating those who do not share his views and demand proof for his claims by calling them retards incapable of thinking. 

We realize the academic scoffer would then demand archaeology of this house or they will never believe it. Who cares? They have no position as who is dumb enough to leave gold sitting there as a museum for those to discover after the land was devoured for gold in the Spanish and American eras. How ridiculous! These are uncapable of thinking. They set up false narratives and then, demand that everyone operate in the same obtuse manner they employ. That is retarded.

pg. 128

"Uncapable" is not even a proper word. Tim is in desperate need of an editor. 

Tim does not care to understand these maps as they were written but abuses them for what "proof" they can furnish for the Philippines being the Garden of Eden. For Tim it's a simple formula: The Garden of Eden is in the East, the Philippines is in the East, therefore all maps with The Garden of Eden in the East must mean the Philippines is being described. 

But as Tim teaches the Philippines is not the Garden of Eden anyway because it is submerged beneath the floor of the Sulu Sea and is inaccessible except to its lone inhabitants Enoch and Elijah. Once again Timothy Jay Schwab who is The God Culture has given the world a book that is stunning in its ignorance and is fit only for wastepaper. But at least it looks good. 

The God Culture: Tracts

There's a lot of things Timothy Jay Schwab who is The God Culture does not tell his listening audience. For instance he has not told his audience that he will be hosting a show with Zen Garcia once a month. Instead he only sends a notification AFTER the show has ended which means no one can watch live unless they know about it beforehand. Tim will be on with Zen every third Thursday of the month. Check out Zen's calendar if you want to listen. 

Tim has also not told his audience that he has tracts available to hand out on the street.

Those are the tracts available at the moment. But not available online or anywhere else except from Timothy Jay Schwab himself. That is what Koki Cruz says.

Praises Yahuah for printing of another 7,500 Tracts. It’s Worth investing for eternal dividends. Thanks to all those who participated in the distibution of the 15,000 Tracts in Tugegarao and Penablanca, Cagayan Valley, in Tabuk City of Kalinga, Davao, Makati, Quezon City and distributed by Sabbath Believers Congelation in Baguio City. Thanks also for my partner The God Culture - Original  Founder Bro Timothy Schwab and Sis Anna, for your labor of love for preparing the tracts which we discussed when we were in Bacolod.

https://www.facebook.com/reel/1117283496162704

According to her Facebook reel these tracts cost a whopping 90,000 pesos!!!

That's a lot of money to spend in order to spread lies to her fellow kababayns. 

Just look at these people smiling as they prepare to lie to the Filipino public about what the Philippines is and what the Bible teaches. You can bet they have swallowed Tim's falsehoods without bothering to test him to see if what he says is true. 

https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=6853267768050241&set=pcb.6853275758049442

It appears these tracts are being handed out with pens.

https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=6853270928049925&set=pcb.6853275758049442

Now, why are they handing out pens along with the tracts? Is there something inside which requires a pen such as a quiz? It is too bad there are no pictures of the contents of these little booklets. However, anyone familiar with this blog and with The God Culture knows exactly what is in them. 

The first tract is undoubtedly about how the Philippines is Ophir, Tarshish, and Sheba and The Garden of Eden is underneath the Sulu sea. The second tract is about Tim's ridiculous configuration of the name of God from YHWH to Yahuah. The third is all about not doing any work on Saturday. 

The cover of the last one is so egregious because there is a citation of Matthew 11:28. Jesus said come unto ME for rest. He did not say do no work on Saturday for rest. Our rest is found through faith in Christ not in doing no work on Saturday. It's simply a ridiculous lie Tim has repeated ad nauseam in his books and videos. He is literally turning Filipinos away from the saving rest of Jesus Christ. The tract may be titled "In God We Rest" but that is not what Tim actually believes or teaches when he says we must keep the seventh day sabbath.

Likewise the cover of the second book about the name of God is pretty awful.   

The Father • The Son • His People

With the lack of mention of the Holy Spirit that is a subtle denial of the Trinity. Tim is on record declaring that the Holy Spirit is not God and positing that He may actually be a creature. 

So, if you are at the mall watch out! You just might get God Culture'd by a group of smiling children handing out one of Timothy Jay Schwab's tracts and a pen. Leave the tract, take the pen.