The God Culture: 100 Lies About the Philippines: Lie#44: An Augustinian Friar Called Filipinos Savages

Welcome back to 100 lies The God Culture teaches about the Philippines. Today's lie concerns Timothy Jay Schwab's claim that an Augustinian friar wrote a letter wherein he called Filipinos savages and barbarians. As we shall see that claim is not true in the slightest. 

Tim makes this claim in part 10 of his Lost Isles of Gold LIVE Series. 

 

Lost Isles of Gold LIVE Series - Part 10: History & Archaeology. We Three Kings of the Philippines?

14:43 This is a letter first from, uh, Fray Rada. And Fray Rada had, uh, attacked Filipinos. He said they were savages, they were barbarians, they didn't have manners. Right. Have you met a Filipino? That we already know is a lie, uh, cuz, because Filipinos have the most manners of probably any culture on Earth. So, the guy was a liar and he was called out by the captain generals of Spain who were in the Philippines like Guido de Lavezaris who led them. And in 1574 he wrote a letter from him and all the captain generals together responding to this Fray Rada and here's what he said. "There are some Chiefs in this island who have on their persons 10 or 12,000 ducats worth of gold in jewels." 

This claim also shows up in his book The Search for King Solomon's Treasure. 

The Search For King Solomon's Treasure, pg. 145

In 1574, Guido de Lavezaris, second Spanish Governor General of the Philippines, responds to a Jesuit-style attempt to marginalize the Philippines as you will find becomes the narrative a hundred years later unfortunately. That is what we are taught today and it is erroneous. Fray Martin de Rada of the order of St. Augustine attempts to mischaracterize Filipinos so blatantly and drastically, it yielded a strong response from Lavezaris and others when they consider his writings “harsh, harmful to this whole community, and very prejudicial” as Rada is “misled,” “ill informed” and “erroneous” in their words. 

Finally it is also forms part of the teaching in his Small Group Study Guide which is based upon his Lost Isles of Gold LIVE Series. 

Lost Isles of Gold Small Group Study Guide, pg. 23

3. When answering Fray Rada's "ill-informed" characterization of Filipinos as barbarians, how much godl did the average person in the upper-class wear on their persons in public?

This lie simply compounds itself from book to video to study guide. The fact is Fray Martin Rada did not write a letter disparaging the character of Filipinos. The subject of his letter was the unjust taxation of the natives by the Spaniards. Here is his letter in full.

The Philippine Islands, 1493-1803, vol. 3, pgs. 253-259

Most Illustrious Lord:

Your Lordship asks me to give, in writing, my opinion of affairs in this land; and to invent a remedy which shall result more to the service of God, our Lord, and of his Majesty, and to the security of the consciences of those who live in this land. I say the same that I said lately in conversation with your Lordship, when your Lordship asked me in the autumn whether it would be right that the Indians should give tribute. I told your Lordship that I had determined to call an assembly of all the religious that were in this land, so that all of us in common could discuss the affairs of the country. Until then, it did not seem to me that any change should be made, except that the Spaniards should raise tribute by similar methods to those employed farther down on the coast—namely, a small amount of rice, equivalent to seventy gantas, and a piece of cloth, for each Indian giving tribute. Having assented to this—although some religious, and that rightly, have found fault with the tribute, both in the pulpit and in the confessional, and in other and private discussions—I waited until all should come here, and the conference should be called as I desired, in order that everything might be better reasoned out. Seeing now the great delay of some, and that we would have to leave this town—some alone, and others in company—have taken the opinion of all the fathers who were to be found here. They unanimously affirm that none among all these islands have come into the power of the Spaniards with just title. For, although there are many and just causes for making war on some nations or towns, no governor or captain can do so without an express mandate for it from his Majesty, excepting only that war which is waged in defense of their persons and property, others being unjustly undertaken; since neither in the first instructions that we received, nor in later ones, has his Majesty ordered us to make war on the natives of these islands. Rather did he order the contrary, in a letter that Juan de la Isla brought from his Majesty, written from the Escorial to the governor (who is now in glory), and which I saw. That letter declared that any conquest made in these islands by force of arms, would be unjust, even if there were cause for doing so. All the more unjust are these conquests that in none, or almost none, of them has there been any cause. For as your Lordship knows, we have gone everywhere with the mailed hand; and we have required the people to be friends, and then to give us tribute. At times war has been declared against them, because they did not give as much as was demanded. And if they would not give tribute, but defended themselves, then they have been attacked, and war has been carried on with fire and sword; and even on some occasions, after the people have been killed and destroyed, and their village taken, the Spaniards have sent men to summon them to make peace. And when the Indians, in order not to be destroyed, came to say that they would like to be friends, the Spaniards have immediately asked them for tribute, as they have done but recently in all the villages of Los Camarines. And wherever the Indians, through fear of the Spaniards, have left their houses and fled to the mountains, our people have burned the houses or inflicted other great injuries. I omit mention of the villages that are robbed without awaiting peace, or those assaulted in the night-time. Pretexts have been seized to subjugate all these villages, and levy tribute on them, to such amount as can be secured. With what conscience has a future tribute been asked from them, before they knew us, or before they have received any benefit from us? With what right have three extortions, of large amounts of gold, been made on the Ylocos, without holding any other communication or intercourse with them, beyond going there, and demanding gold of them, and then returning? And I say the same of Los Camarines and of Acuyo, and the other villages that are somewhat separated from the Spanish settlements. In all this is it not clear that tribute is unjustly raised? Likewise he who sends them for it or orders it, as also the captain in the first place, next the soldiers and those taking part in it, and those who advise it; and those who, being able to, do not prevent it; and those who, being able to make restitution, do not do so—all these together, and each person individually, are entirely responsible for all injury. And it is the same in the villages in the neighborhood of the Spanish settlements; because, although they may have some religious instruction, and under the shelter of the Spanish are safe from their enemies, and some injuries which have been done them have been redressed, they do not fail to receive great molestation and injury through the continual presence of the Spaniards, and never-ending embarcations. Finally, they were free, and, to speak openly, not reduced to vassalage. And when base and foundation fail, all that is built thereon is defective—all the more as the Indians are not protected from their enemies, nor maintained in justice, as they should be. Many piracies go on as before, and those most thoroughly subdued suffer the worst, because, being robbed by others who are not so subject, they are given neither any satisfaction nor allowed to secure it for themselves. And there is not sufficient reason for his Majesty to have ordered that the land shall be allotted and divided into encomiendas; because his Majesty was ill informed, as appears by his own letter, since he had been assured that, without any war, they had of their own accord become his Majesty's vassals. Therefore it seems to have been entirely against his Majesty's will. If at any time we have been of opinion that the land should be allotted, as indeed it now seems to us, or likewise if the land is to be maintained, it was and is to avoid greater injury and robberies, which are committed without any remedy, when there are no repartimientos. Therefore, only one thing now works injury. We are trying to render the land orderly, and not turbulent as it was before, when no one knew anything about it. Even now some of the Spaniards treat the natives very ill. More than all, the tribute which is now raised (three maez [mace] for each Indian) is excessive, in our opinion, considering what we saw from the beginning among them and our intercourse with them, and our knowledge of their labors, and of the tools with which they cultivate the ground, and their great difficulty in supporting themselves—for they even live a part of the year on roots; and the common people can scarcely obtain a robe with which to clothe themselves. Whence it happens that, at the time of collecting the tribute, some of them demolish their houses—which at the least would be worth as much as the tribute itself, if they should be sold—and go into hiding, in order not to pay the tribute. They say that afterward they will return to build, with the labor of a month or two, another house. From others it is necessary to demand the tribute with arquebuses and other weapons, and men, in order to make them give it; and most of them it is necessary to imprison to make them provide the tribute. Therefore most of the owners of encomiendas maintain stocks, in which they keep as prisoners the chiefs or timaguas [freemen] who do not supply the amount of the tribute from their slaves when they themselves cannot obtain it from the latter. Thus, considering all this and other inconveniences, that, in order not to go into greater details, I do not set down, it was the opinion of the majority of the fathers, that—even if the whole affair were justified, and the Indians maintained in peace, justice, and religious instruction—for the present, and until the Indians have other opportunities, and other and better tools to cultivate the land, and until the land is more fertile, all that is taken from each Indian, in general, above the value of one maez, in food and raiment, is cruelty, and oppresses them too heavily.

Your Lordship should consider that in Nueva España, the Indians at first gave nothing but food (then worth a great deal) and service. And all times are not alike, for now they can give little, but in course of time, the earth growing more fertile, they can give more; so that what is collected of all this that the Indians now, in strict justice, do not owe, and that which until now has been raised, has been unjustly raised, on account of the evil way in which these Indians have been conquered, and because his Majesty's orders regarding them have not been obeyed.

And because your Lordship asks my opinion as to what ought to be done, I say that, considering that the land is already subjugated and divided into repartimientos—and for many reasons which, in order not to be prolix, I omit—there is no reason to abandon it, since it is very necessary that those who reside here should be supported. Your Lordship ought, in the opinion of the majority of the captains, to send his Majesty a true, simple, and clear report, without dissimulations, of the methods that have been adopted in all this conquest; and of its present condition, and the methods adopted in collecting the tributes, so that his Majesty, as a thorough Christian, may decree what is to be done in the matter. In the meanwhile, the least amount of tribute possible should be taken for the support of all, considering that it is not owed; and those who have repartimientos should support those who have not. It seems to me that if the tributes should be regulated to the one maez of food and raiment for each Indian, which I spoke of above, there will be sufficient for both classes if our people aid themselves with other profits that may be obtained. In order that this may be collected with some tribute, your Lordship should in every way try to protect these natives, and to do them justice; and to abolish abuses and punish pirates, etc. We on our part, shall do what we can to aid them, instructing them in our holy faith. Since this is my opinion I sign it with my name. Done at San Pablo of Manila, on the twenty-first of June, one thousand five hundred and seventy-four.

Fray Martin de Rada

As can be seen Fray Rada never calls the natives barbarians or savages and he never says they are ill-mannered. That claim is a fiction born from Timothy Jay Schwab's brain. Likewise Tim misrepresents the response to Rada's letter by writing, "it yielded a strong response from Lavezaris and others when they consider his writings 'harsh, harmful to this whole community, and very prejudicial.'" That is a half quote meant to make it appear Rada was negatively affecting the Filipino community by writing nasty things. 

What Lavezaris actually wrote was, "we shall not fail to point out in the “Opinion,” certain things which we consider harsh, harmful to this whole community, and very prejudicial to the development of this land." 

The Philippine Islands, 1493-1803, vol. 3, pgs. 260

Replying to the opinion that was given by the father provincial, Fray Martin de Rada, of the order of St. Augustine, on affairs in this land, and on the raising of tribute from its natives, we confess that it was zealously done, in the service of God, our Lord, and for the security of our consciences. In this estimation we hold and repute him. But, as sometimes the very wise are misled—now through too great zeal, and again by their ignorance of some things, which if they had understood fully, they would not have been misled—we shall not fail to point out in the “Opinion,” certain things which we consider harsh, harmful to this whole community, and very prejudicial to the development of this land. 

The issue is NOT the Filipino natives but the taxation of the natives. Speaking against this taxation is what is "harsh, harmful to this whole community, and very prejudicial." And it so "to the development of this land," not the Filipino people. It is taxes which develop the land. 

Ironically enough in the comments of his video someone says they did research that finds Rada was actually an advocate for Filipinos. Tim scoffs at the notion, calling it propaganda. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6x7ZhjPS6D4&lc=UgwbI4vlK6Up6k_c-CF4AaABAg

@BrideOfYahusha I did my research and it says that father Rada is actually an advocate for Filipinos.

@TheGodCulture Yet he wrote they were savages and was directly corrected and rebuked by Captain General Levaazaris also signed by ALL the other Captains. In other words, you did not research but found a piece of propaganda and then, repeated it. We cover this in our book. Don't fall for propaganda when you do not have to. Yah Bless.

What gall for Tim to accuse someone of doing no research. It is Tim who has done no research. If he had actually read Rada's letter he would know that he did not speak ill of Filipinos but of the Spanish. As it is the claim that Fray Rada wrote disparagingly of Filipinos is simply one more lie being taught about the Philippines by Timothy Jay Schwab who is The God Culture. 

The God Culture: Etymology of Ophir Part 2, Mouth of Light

In the first part of this series about Timothy Jay Schwab's etymology of Ophir I examined his claim that the Hebrew letter Aleph is always translated and pronounced as "A" and his rejection of Hebrew vowel points. In this article I will look at his claim Ophir means "Mouth of Light." Always keep in mind Tim admits he is not a linguist nor does he wish to be one. 

The Search for King Solomon's Treasure, pg. 24

Hebrew: Ôwphîyr: אופיר: o-feer’: reducing to ashes, fine gold. of uncertain derivation; Ophir, the name of a son of Joktan, and of a gold region in the East: –Ophir.

Ancient Hebrew: (א)A, (ו)U, (פ)P, (י)Y, (ר)R.

The shroud of confusion regarding ancient Ophir begins with it’s name rendered from the Hebrew in all modern Bibles and Bible dictionaries, we have reviewed, improperly. It begins with an Hebrew “A” or Aleph (א) not an “O.” This letter is always “A” in sound and translation. It is never “O” nor “U.” In fact, the second letter is an Ancient Hebrew WAW or U (ו) though “W” is also correct as a “W” is simply “UU” or “Double U.” Thus, you are looking at the actual origin of the chemical symbol for gold in this word as it begins with “AU” not “OW.” It should be rendered in Ancient Hebrew to English as AUPYR, AUPIR, AUPHYR or similar. They certainly did attempt to reduce Ophir to ashes but this meaning is erroneous and appears spurious perhaps exposing their intent.

The origin of the chemical symbol for gold, AU, is said to be the Latin Aurum or Aurea which we will determine in the next chapter is the equivalent of Ophir. This is the kingdom of gold for the Greeks which carried over into Latin but AUPYR is the origin of that reference as you will find thus the true origin of the chemical symbol for gold – AU. It is used twelve times in the Bible and with brilliance. The Bible offers markers along the way which lead us to the isles of the East in the Philippines and nowhere else. Scholars have been confused about the origin of this word but when you truly look at the Ancient Hebrew, you find the word for light as used in Genesis when God said let there be light. We will prove this is the same land.

This verse even identifies the isles of the sea which we will later prove is Ophir even tying Ophir to this same word for light which is it’s true origin etymologically. AUR(אור) is “light” and insert PY(פי) for AUPYR and it renders “Mouth of Light.” This is a direct identification in Hebrew of the land where Yahuah God said “Let there be light.” This is because this word in Hebrew is really AUR not OWR nor UWR which  are truly ludicrous renderings especially when the first letter ALEPH (א) which is always “A,” could not be mistaken by a Hebrew scholar. As you can see, we have gone extremely deep into this topic even assessing the Hebrew word for word and letter for letter in this pursuit. We find Ophir to be the region of light known as the Land of Creation which you will find proves out completely as the Philippines.

The Search for King Solomon's Treasure, pgs 24-26

First note that Latin and Hebrew are not related in anyway. Latin is an Indo-European Language while Hebrew is a Semitic language. The twain do not meet. When he says they originate in Hebrew Tim is making up a fake etymology for the Latin words Aurum and Aurea which he does not even attempt to prove. 

Secondly note that Tim has, for no apparent reason, transformed Ophir into a compound word. He claims Ophir is composed of the words AUR meaning light and PY meaning mouth. But that would make the word AURPY which is not the spelling for Ophir which he has rendered as AUPYR. Does Tim not realize that AURPY is not AUPYR?

Rather than using Strong's Tim's source for his information about Py is from Abarim Publications. 

Solomon's Treasure Sourcebook, pg. 15

The Strong's number for this word is H6310.

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/h6310/kjv/wlc/0-1/

As can be seen this word is not only translated mouth but also commandment, edge, according, word, hole, end, appointment, portion, tenor, and sentence. Why is Tim focusing only on mouth? Because he is merely picking and choosing what he thinks will fit his thesis about the Philippines being the land of creation and not what actually makes sense or is correct. 

The fact is nothing in this etymology makes sense. 

Tim says Ophir is actually AUPYR and means mouth of light. But mouth of light, according to his own interpretation, would be AURPY. Those are clearly not the same words. AU is not AUR and PY is not PYR. Most daring of all is Tim gives NO REASON that Ophir is a compound word. The explanation is forced and comes out of nowhere. He writes:

AUR(אור) is “light” and insert PY(פי) for AUPYR and it renders “Mouth of Light.”

Why has AU become AUR? Why take out PYR and insert PY? What Tim has done is create a new word, AURPY, rather than give a proper etymology for the original word AUPYR. Yet he claims AUPYR and AURPY are the same word.

Listen to Tim explain this etymology in his videos. 

15:27 This is why the very word Ophir actually spelled in Hebrew A U P Y R.  Aupyr, really. A U R, let's break it down, in the Hebrew is the word for light used for God said, Yahuah said, “let there be, AUR, light.” No, it's not just something pirates say. With the P Y, PY, added in the middle which is the Hebrew word for mouth. Wait. This word that we render Ophir is literally in Hebrew “Mouth of Light.” Wow! Where Yahuah spoke “let there be light,” in the mouth of light, Ophir Philippines.

What Is Going On??? Thoughts from The God Culture

He says Ophir in Hebrew is spelled A U P Y R and then starts breaking down A U R instead of A U! Then P Y is "added in." If it is added in that means it was not previously there. Where did P Y R go? 

Another problem with translating AURPY as mouth of light is that it is grammatically incorrect. In Hebrew mouth of light would be PY AUR.

https://translate.google.com/?sl=en&tl=iw&text=mouth%20of%20light%0A&op=translate

http://www.kabbalah.info/eng/content/view/frame/31785?/eng/content/view/full/31785&main

Hence, a blockage on the Lights extends from the left line, as only the left line freezes the Lights. This is the meaning of “cast pur, that is, the lot,” meaning it interprets what it casts. It says “pur,”which concerns Pi Ohr (a Mouth of Light, pronounced Pi Ohr).

The first translation is from Google translate. The second translation is from a website about Kabbalah. Kabbalists know all about proper Hebrew linguistics so their rendering mouth of light as Pi Ohr should not be dismissed out of hand. There is not much more about the Hebrew rendering of Ophir as mouth of light to be found except for one man defending the ministry of William Branham.

THE ABC's OF GOD: HEBREW FOR ''DUMEE'' (MY BLOOD), pgs 474 & 481

A third problem with this etymology is Ophir is a proper name while mouth of light is a phrase. At no time in his discussion does Tim justify transforming Ophir from a proper name into a phrase. But that does not matter much anyway because Ophir is not AURPY or Pi Ohr. 

The ultimate problem with this etymology is that Tim has made up everything. With a sleight of hand he has turned AUPYR into AURPY and given an etymology for the new word rather than the original word, Ophir or AUPYR. 

In one of his videos Tim says Ophir means Land of Light.

Let There Be Light... Philippines? Origin of Ophir, Sheba and Havilah. 12G

12:26 Well here it is. In pictograph meaning “The beginning first man Elohim inhabits.” So, he said, “Let there be light,” and the Philippines happened. The land of resources he used to build all that is. Whoa. The land of light. The root of Ophir. The origin of  all things on earth and the origin of gold, AU.

On this slide Tim has Ophir as meaning, "The Beginning. First Man Exiled to Inhabit & Till the Ground & Worship Elohim At the Ends of the Earth." 

So, which is it? What does Ophir mean? Land of Light? Mouth of light? Or, "The Beginning. First Man Exiled to Inhabit & Till the Ground & Worship Elohim At the Ends of the Earth?" Tim is making it up as he goes.  

It just goes to show that being proud to not be an actual linguist and then attempting to do linguistics is foolish.

The God Culture: Etymology of Ophir Part 1, Aleph is Always "A"

Timothy Jay Schwab who is The God Culture has admitted he is not a linguist nor does he wish to be one. However, that has not stopped him from using linguistics in his vain attempts to prove the Philippines is Ophir. In his book The Search for King Solomon's Treasure Tim explains several etymologies for the word Ophir and why that leads to the Philippines. 

In my initial review of The Search for King Solomon's Treasure I briefly looked at Tim's etymologies for Ophir. This article will take a more in-depth look at one of those etymologies. 

The origin of the chemical symbol for gold, AU, is said to be the Latin Aurum or Aurea which we will determine in the next chapter is the equivalent of Ophir. This is the kingdom of gold for the Greeks which carried over into Latin but AUPYR is the origin of that reference as you will find thus the true origin of the chemical symbol for gold – AU. It is used twelve times in the Bible and with brilliance. The Bible offers markers along the way which lead us to the isles of the East in the Philippines and nowhere else. Scholars have been confused about the origin of this word but when you truly look at the Ancient Hebrew, you find the word for light as used in Genesis when God said let there be light. We will prove this is the same land.

Genesis 1:3 KJV

And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. Hebrew: Ôwr: אוֹר: light. (א is ALWAYS “A” not “O”)

Isaiah 24:15 KJV

Wherefore glorify ye the LORD in the fires, even the name of the LORD God of Israel in the isles of the sea. (LORD is YHWH, Yahuah) Hebrew: ûwr: אוּר: fires, light. (א is ALWAYS “A” not “U”)

Contrast this to another use of the same Hebrew word in Isaiah. Understand that there were no vowel points as the dots you see that supposedly differentiate these two words, the exact same otherwise, were inserted around 1000 A.D. or so by the Masoretes. They are the same word in Ancient Hebrew. As much as we appreciate the Textus Receptus and you will note we use the King James Version principally in our teachings which was translated from that manuscript, we also remain aware these vowel points did not exist for thousands of years prior and somehow these words could be read and understood without vowel points that entire time. Thus, we still do not actually need them much of the time or should test them often. This is redefined as a different word that is obviously the same use in this passage not fires but light and it is rendered in Isaiah as now beginning with an “U” in Strong’s Concordance and others but it’s an Aleph (א) which is always “A” not “U” nor “O.”

This verse even identifies the isles of the sea which we will later prove is Ophir even tying Ophir to this same word for light which is it’s true origin etymologically. AUR(אור) is “light” and insert PY(פי) for AUPYR and it renders “Mouth of Light.” This is a direct identification in Hebrew of the land where Yahuah God said “Let there be light.” This is because this word in Hebrew is really AUR not OWR nor UWR which  are truly ludicrous renderings especially when the first letter ALEPH (א) which is always “A,” could not be mistaken by a Hebrew scholar. As you can see, we have gone extremely deep into this topic even assessing the Hebrew word for word and letter for letter in this pursuit. We find Ophir to be the region of light known as the Land of Creation which you will find proves out completely as the Philippines.

We have what would be one of the largest oversights in Hebrew translation – one in which no actual Hebrew scholar could possibly err. We point this out early because we wish to establish a pattern you will identify in this story which has not only been suppressed in history but in Bible interpretation really working hand-in-hand. We are all to prove all things (1Thess. 5:21) lest we be deceived and the delusion in which we live, we were warned, is strong. Also, you will find we restore the name of God recorded over 6,800 times in the Hebrew Bible as YHWH never as Lord which taken back into Hebrew is the word Ba’al. We will provide charts with explanation in the back of this book because we pronounce this phonetically and you will find us using Yahuah in place of LORD in narration. Feel free to review that now if you feel the need. Let us commence with the Bible narrative.

The Search for King Solomon's Treasure, pgs 24-26

To cut straight to the chase, everything in the above few paragraphs is wrong. Take note Tim prefaces his comments by saying he appreciates the Textus Receptus but says there were no vowel points for thousands of years. Apparently he thinks the Hebrew portion of the Bible was translated from the Textus Receptus. This is wrong because the Textus Receptus is the Greek New Testament! What a boner. It's these little errors that add up to prove this man has no idea what he is talking about. 

Tim's errors hang on his claims Hebrew vowel points are unnecessary and the Hebrew letter Aleph is always translated A and never U or O. The fact is there are no vowels in Hebrew. There is no A, E, I, O, or U. It is the vowel points which aid the reader in correct pronunciation. Where Tim goes wrong is saying that two words which look the same must be the same word, have the same meaning, and we do not need vowel points, or apparently even context, to read and understand them correctly. 

The words to which he is referring are Strong's H216 and H217.

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/h216/kjv/wlc/0-1/

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/h217/kjv/wlc/0-1/

As you can see H216 and H217 are spelled with the same three letters but they have different vowel points on the second letter. This gives the words different pronunciations and definitions. H216 is translated light but never fire while H216 is mostly translated as fire. The one time it is translated light is in reference to fire.

Isaiah 50:11 Behold, all ye that kindle a fire, that compass yourselves about with sparks: walk in the light of your fire, and in the sparks that ye have kindled. This shall ye have of mine hand; ye shall lie down in sorrow.

To say these two words are the same word, have the same pronunciation, and have the same meaning is to ignore the context of the scriptures in which they are written. It's as stupid as if Tim said read and read are spelled the same therefore they should be pronounced the same and have the same meaning. These types of words are called homographs. They are words spelled the same yet which have different meanings. Such words include: address, mark, bat, and mean.  

It is the vowel points that primarily show us how the words are to be pronounced. Certain diacritics, including dots and dashes around the letters, indicate which vowel sounds to make. While it is true the vowel points used today were introduced at a late date it is not true they "were inserted around 1000 A.D. or so by the Masoretes." They were introduced much earlier. 

Vowel and cantillation marks were added to the older consonantal layer of the Bible between 600 CE and the beginning of the 10th century.

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

Another way the Hebrew Bible aids in pronouncing vowels is having certain consonants serve as vowels. This is called a mater lectionis. Tim does not mention this method. In fact he does not tell us how he is able to correctly pronounce Hebrew without the vowel points. He simply dismisses them, says they are a way to cover up the truth, and give his own definitions of H216 and H217 irrespective of the context in which he finds those words. 

There is simply no reason to dismiss the vowel points. I am not going to write a defense of them here except to say they weren't invented out of thin air. We can see evidence of correct Hebrew vowel pronunciation in the Septuagint. 

Presumably, the vowels of Biblical Hebrew were not indicated in the original text, but various sources attest to them at various stages of development. Greek and Latin transcriptions of words from the biblical text provide early evidence of the nature of Biblical Hebrew vowels. In particular, there is evidence from the rendering of proper nouns in the Koine Greek Septuagint (3rd–2nd centuries BCE) and the Greek alphabet transcription of the Hebrew biblical text contained in the Secunda (3rd century CE, likely a copy of a preexisting text from before 100 BCE).

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

Thus in 1 Kings 9:28 the Hebrew word for Ophir is translated Sophira. That gives us a good idea how the word H211 should be pronounced. 

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/h211/kjv/wlc/0-1/

Tim claims that because this word begins with Aleph the first letter should be translated as "A." If that is so then where does the Greek translation originate? Of course Tim is on record trashing the Septuagint so that argument is not going to hold much weight with him. Likewise the fact that words beginning with Aleph are not always translated with an "A" will also hold no weight with him as Tim absolutely despises real scholars and linguists.

Some of the words beginning with Aleph but not translated with an "A" or having an "A" pronunciation include: Ophir, Uphaz, El, obed, and omer. A full list of such words can be found here. Again, I know Tim will not care about anything on that list and call it all a lie from fake scholars. He is on record calling all Bibles, Bible dictionaries, and Bible concordances as being corrupt. 

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.

https://philippinefails.blogspot.com/2024/05/the-god-culture-exposing-lies-in-our.html

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? 

Psalm 119 is an acrostic psalm divided into 22 sections of 8 verses. Each verse begins with the same letter. If Tim is correct when he says Aleph is always translated as A then why doesn't every first word in the first section of Psalm 119 begin with the letter A?

https://odbu.org/topic/ot245-02-in-psalm-119-acrostic/

Perhaps Tim will make his own nonsensical translation of Psalm 119 when he finally publishes his corrected Levite Bible. 

Again, I ask how does he know how to correctly pronounce Hebrew words without reference to the vowel points? What is his method? He does not give it.  

This is the end of the first part of examining Tim's etymology of Ophir. In the next article I will examine Tim's claim Ophir means "mouth of light."

The God Culture: 100 Lies About the Philippines: Lie #43: A Spanish Document Says The Philippines is Ophir

Welcome back to 100 lies The God Culture teaches about the Philippines. Today's lie concerns Tim's claim that an old Spanish document maps the way to Ophir and ends in the Philippines. As we shall see that is simply not true in the slightest. 

Tim makes this claim in his videos.

NEW!!! Lost Isles of Gold LIVE Series. Part 3: Where Is Tarshish? Philippines? Not Spain or Britain!

22:35 In, uh, about 1519 or so even before Magellan landed in the Philippines the Spanish created a map in a Spanish government Document number 98 and it actually maps it all the way through. We have this in our source book. You can read it. We actually give it to you in Spanish and we show you how to read it in Spanish. So, you can read the original and you can see that they're leading you specifically to the Philippines as Ophir and Tarshish on a map. Wow! GMA mapped it in that interview that we showed in one of the last segments, uh, and this is their mapping so we're using that and you can see that Ophir and Tarshish, the end of this whole route is the Philippines. This isn't a mystery this has always been the case

Tim claims GMA mapped out this route as if they are affirming his fake history but that is not the case. 

Lalaking nakahukay ng ginto noon at naging milyonaryo, kumusta na ngayon? | Kapuso Mo, Jessica Soho

They are simply illustrating a speech given by Representative Dan Fernandez. But with the GMA seal Tim can strut and pretend that a news organization has legitimized his lies about the Philippines. 

He also makes the same claim about Document 98 in his book The Search for King Solomon's Treasure.

The Search for King Solomon's Treasure, pg 161

In fact, the Spanish even record directions from Spain East to Ophir or Lequios which it specifically equates affirming Magellan’s notes, and Tarshish. In Coleccion General De Documentos..., Doc. 98, detailed directions are provided over many pages from Spain, passing Africa, then India and Sri Lanka, to Burma, to Sumatra, to Moluccas, to China, then finally to Tarsis and then, Lequios and Ofir or Ophir, Philippines. [152, see Sourcebook for detail.]

Tim's comments on Document 98 in his Sourcebook are interesting. 

The Search for King Solomon's Sourcebook, pg  151

NOTE: This whole chapter progresses from Spain to Lequios and Ofir. Not a perfect translation but one can easily understand this is identifying the Philippines. It is not Japan which 149 clarifies. Taiwan is not a group of isles. This is the Philippines especially since Pigafetta and others found the Lequios in Luzon Philippines. 

Tim's claim that this document gives directions to the Philippines rests on his misidentification of the Lequios Islands with the Philippines. I have explored that issue in depth elsewhere. You can read about it here. 

His reference to 149 is to his source which is number 149. This source is another document from volume 5 of the Coleccion General De Documentos discussing the importance of document 98. Here is what it says in full.  

The Search For King Solomon's Treasure Sourcebook, pg. 150

Of undeniable importance is document number 98, entitled “Geographical description from the Cape of Good Hope to China,” and whose original heading reads as follows: “These are the places and ports and main islands that there are from the Cape of Good Hope to the Leyquios, which is what has so far been discovered the most and of which there is the most news in Portugal.” It is unsigned and undated, but there is no doubt, from what can be deduced from some sentences in the text, that this notable work was due to someone who, knowing what the Portuguese had until then written and reported verbally about their expeditions in that part of the world that belonged to them, managed to condense this sum of geographical knowledge into a few sheets. The collector has assigned it the date “1520-1528,” we believe based on the place that this precious manuscript occupies in the file of which it is a part; but in our opinion it must have been written before 1522. It describes with some detail the Asian coast from the part washed by the waters of the Red Sea to the beginning of the Chinese coast; it gives information on all the kingdoms that were more or less known at that time, as well as the islands of Ceylon, both Java, Moluccas, Celebes, Banda and others, up to Gilolo; from here it turns to the mainland of Asia, not without alluding to Borneo, and concludes with a vague allusion to Japan, or Lequios, as it was called then. There is not the slightest concrete allusion to the Philippine Archipelago, although the author mentions groups of islands situated at a short distance from it. This persuades us that the work we are dealing with was written before the year 1522, when the ship Victoria arrived in Spain after having sailed around the world. In that same year, the Portuguese captured the ship Trinidad in the Moluccas, which, like the Victoria, was part of Magellan's fleet. The Portuguese seized the logbooks and all the documents carried by the crew of the Trinidad, and it is reasonable to assume that the following year, 1523, such precious manuscripts were already in Portugal. For these reasons, we repeat, we believe that this remarkable Description must have been written before 1522.

http://bdh-rd.bne.es/viewer.vm?id=0000175741&page=1622

The compilers of these documents says that document 98 could not have been written before 1522 because there is no mention of the Philippines and the document is about Portuguese discoveries. Now, it is a fact of history that Portugal did not discover the Philippines. Why would they mention those islands? They wouldn't! 

Tim comments on this denial thusly:

NOTE: In other words, don't pay attention to conclusions of authors or historians who draw from antiquated information as this identifies. That is so 1520 when we are now beyond 1521’s find by Magellan. Why is this document from the Spanish so adamant about this being the thinking before 1522? Because Magellan found the Lequios again documented by Pigafetta and others following as Luzon Island Philippines is fully confirmed not Japan nor Taiwan who are proven false. To think otherwise, is simply a false paradigm of willing ignorance. Of largest note, that out thinking ignored the Philippines which you can find in British writings especially even today. We find it in Nowell, Suarez and other authors whom we even quote as well which is why we do as this Spanish document suggests, we ignore their antiquated paradigm of bias in conclusions which they clearly have and this document condemned in this writing as well in characterizing it as stuck in an old paradigm. The Lequios are not a scholarly mystery as you will find many who cite one quote after another and maps but all before Magellan and then actually use those in drawing a conclusion ignoring Magellan, Pigafetta and many others and ignoring the Philippines. Why is it that the Philippines must be ignored? Well, in reading this entire book, that reason is obvious. It is the only option as Ophir as there is no other and we are not supposed to know this. 

Tim simply brushes it off saying it's a false paradigm and hinting that the true location of Ophir as being the Philippines is being covered up. That is nonsense. 

Document 98 is not a list of Spanish discoveries. Once again, the heading of this document is:

http://bdh-rd.bne.es/viewer.vm?id=0000175741&page=921

These are the places and ports and the main islands that exist from the Cape of Good Hope to the Leyquios, which is what has been discovered the most so far and what is most known in Portugal.

Portugal did not discover the Philippines. The Spanish were the first Europeans to set eyes on the archipelago. It would not make sense for the Philippines to be included in a list of Portuguese discoveries until after 1522 which is when documents from the captured Trinidad would have made their way back to Portugal.  Tim simply ignores documented history for his own fabricated lies. 

No one in the history of the world has ever claimed the Lequios Islands were the Philippines until Tim came along. There is no map that shows this identification. The Lequios Islands are in between Taiwan and Japan and today are known as the Ryukyu Islands. A true mapping of the directions in Document 98 looks like this:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4b/Mercator_1569_world_map_composite.jpg

This is a 1569 Mercator Map. The Lequios Islands are clearly separate from the Philippines. The claim that Document 98 leads to the Philippines is false. It is simply one more lie taught about the Philippines by Timothy Jay Schwab who is The God Culture. 

The God Culture: Jesus Spent His Lost Years In The Philippines

Timothy Jay Schwab who is The God Culture thinks he is Indiana Jones but he is actually Alice in Wonderland. He has fallen down a deep hole and things keep getting curiouser and curiouser.  This time Tim has fallen down the deep hole of a new book called Revelation of the Magi. This book has led Tim to claim Jesus spent his lost years in the Philippines. 

Revelation of the Magi Study with Tim Schwab and Lisa George

1:11:10 Patrick is asking, "Do you think the Messiah could have been in the Philippines during his Missing Years?" 

Wow! What a question, you know?

I know. I like that question.

Nobody knows, uh, where. We have not found documentation of it. Uh, however we can tell you two things. Number one Messiah showed up as light in the Philippines at his birth. He was being born on the other side of the Earth but at the same time he was in the Philippines, number one. Number two it is highly likely that he went to the Philippines though again we cannot prove, we don't have any evidence of that. Um, but we do believe very strongly that it's the case just as we believe believe that, uh, the Apostle Thomas, uh, when he traveled to India in Legends, right? We knew when we saw that we knew, wait a minute, India no, no, no, no, no, no. India is broad. India is from Eastern Iran, Afghanistan all the way over to the Maylay Peninsula, all the way up Indochina to China and includes the Indies. So, when you say India in the ancient perspective you were not necessarily talking about, uh, what we call India on a map today. And so the reality is we just we knew that when we saw that, it's like I bet you, I bet you, Thomas came to the Philippines. Guess what? Revelation of the Magi documents that Thomas came to the Philippines. So there you go.

How stupid. Everybody knows Jesus spent his lost years in Glastonbury with his tin trading uncle Jospeh of Arimathea. And after that he spent some time in a Tibetan monastery. 

But seriously, Jesus did not show up as light in the Philippines at his birth. First of all Revelation of the Magi does not take place in the Philippines. Second of all the Star Child that appears to the Magi in Revelation of the Magi spews heresy when he says:

Revelation of the Magi 13:10 And I am everywhere, because I am a ray of light whose light has shone in this world from the majesty of my Father, who has sent me to fulfill everything that was spoken about me in the entire world and in every land by unspeakable mysteries, and to accomplish the commandment of my glorious Father, who by the prophets preached about me to the contentious house, in the same way as for you, as befits your faith, it was revealed to you about me. 

The real Jesus Christ would never say such a thing. He came to fulfill the law and the prophets of Israel and Israel alone, not the mysteries of all the religions of the world. 

Now, I will predict what will happen next. Tim says he believes very strongly it is the case that Jesus visited the Philippines during his lost years. Lisa George, before she asks the question indicates that either she or Tim or both of them or someone else is working on a book or books that will discuss that topic.

1:10:48 Tim real quick I'm so sorry to interrupt you but there's a there's a question in chat that I, I'm very intrigued by and we've actually discussed this. Um, I don't know if you, I don't know how much detail you want to go into on this or, um, uh, have the person asking the question read some books that we're planning to publish later on on this topic.

Already there are legends that Jesus travelled to India and Tim has expanded India to include the Philippines. My prediction is Timothy Jay Schwab who is The God Culture will now work towards attempting to "prove" that Jesus Christ did in fact spend time in the Philippines during his lost years. We shall see. 

The God Culture: The Mystery of the Three Kings Book Review, Part 4: The Prophecy of Messiah's Star

Timothy Jay Schwab who is The God Culture devotes a whole chapter in his new book The Mystery of the Three Kings to analyzing different prophecies from the Bible and elsewhere about Jesus being a star. That is because according to Revelation of the Magi The Star of Bethlehem was actually Jesus Christ.

pg. 130

Tim begins this chapter by noting the Philippines celebrates Christmas during the -ber months or from September to December.

In fact, one must wonder why the Philippines has the longest celebration on Earth for Messiah’s birth. That, also, is not Catholic. They begin their season in September and end with the birth of Messiah three months later. The culmination is Three Kings’ Day or Epiphany. Sure, the Catholic Church injected the occult Christmas at the wrong time of year, with the wrong Magi, and the wrong Jesus (Yahusha). They add even occult elements far from scripture in embellishment.

In our chapter titled When Was Jesus Born? (10), we will lay out the timeline Luke especially preserves for Messiah’s birth on the Bible Feast of Shavuot in June, nowhere near December. His death and resurrection were during the Feast of Unleavened Bread. The logical reason for the precedence of three months is this Feast cycle. Jesus (Yahusha) was put to death on the First Day of Unleavened Bread in Abib (March-April). He was born on Shavuot in June (See Chapter 10). That is a long celebration in which He embedded Himself in the Biblical Feasts. This practice can never pass away, and does not in any scripture. Even Paul kept these Feasts in the New Testament which he preached as well.

In the Magi Isles, the Catholic Church (the captor who conquered them), obviously took the three-month observance and moved it to the occult Christmas (formerly known as Saturnalia), the birth of His enemy and the sun god of many names (such as Mithra).

pg. 131

Right away Tim presents conjecture as fact. Where is there any evidence Filipinos had four months of celebration from March to June before the Spanish arrived? Where is there any evidence such a festival season was moved by the Catholic Church to September through December? Tim gives none. He simply states it as a fact calling it obvious. Well, it's not obvious and he needs to prove his claims. 

It is very clear in Revelation of the Magi that Jesus Christ is the Star that appeared to the Wise Men. The Star appears to them in the Cave of Treasures and speaks to them. 

13:10 And I am everywhere, because I am a ray of light whose light has shone in this world from the majesty of my Father, who has sent me to fulfill everything that was spoken about me in the entire world and in every land by unspeakable mysteries, and to accomplish the commandment of my glorious Father, who by the prophets preached about me to the contentious house, in the same way as for you, as befits your faith, it was revealed to you about me. 

This is a very problematic verse which Tim has nothing to say about. Here is the footnote from Brent Landau.

This sentence contains an intriguing theological concept: that Christ is the underlying reality of all systems of religious belief in the world. Although other early Christian writings admit the possibility of revelation through non-Christian channels (e.g., Acts 14:15-17, 17:22-31), the RevMagi demonstrates a novel “theology of world religions,” the precise form of which is found nowhere else, to my knowledge, in ancient Christian sources.

Revelation of the Magi states in no uncertain terms that Jesus Christ is the source of all religious belief in the world and not just in Israel. Such a claim is to be found nowhere else in ancient Christian sources or in the Bible. The Magi say they were sent because Jesus has worshippers in every country. 

17:5 And he commanded us in a great vision to come to this land to worship him in reverence because he has worshippers in every country. 

This ecumenism is simply not true. While there are worshippers of Jesus Christ in every country today such was not the case in the time of the Magi. The Lord is very clear that of all the families on the earth he only knew Israel. 

Amos 3:2 You only have I known of all the families of the earth

It is quite telling that Tim has nothing to say about verses 13:10 and 17:5 and claims there is nothing bothersome in the text. He should be very bothered about those verses and the doctrine they teach. Despite this terrible and heretical theology unbothered Tim says Revelation of the Magi is inspired and espouses good theology. 

Enter Revelation of the Magi from the Vatican Library, translated into English and published in 2010 by Brent Landau. Notice how this text explains Matthew and brings clarity to this entire account. That is what inspired documents do and when they do, they prove to be inspired. One does not have to add this to the Canon, but we should all be aware of the information in geography and all the many holes in Matthew get filled in. 

pg. 141

Revelation of the Magi is espousing good theology here.

pg. 149

Tim's claim that the Jesus was prophesied to be an actual star can be written off because Jesus was also prophesied to be a scepter.

Numbers 24:17 A star will come from Jacob, and a scepter will arise from Israel

Tim comments on this verse:

First, in the prophecy of Balaam, the “Him” here is firmly the Messiah to come. We are not unaware of any scholar that would debate that. Balaam can see Him prophetically in the future, not in his time and he beholds him far away from himself as a Star, literally.

pg. 132

Balaam spoke of a star and a scepter. If Jesus is literally a star then what about the scepter? What about the "will come from Jacob" part? It's pretty clear star and scepter as applied to Jesus Christ are metaphorical for greatness and authority. Matthew Henry comments:

He shall come out of Jacob, and Israel, as a Star and a Sceptre; the former denoting his glory and lustre; the latter his power and authority. Christ shall be King, not only of Jacob and Israel, but of all the world; so that all shall be either governed by his golden sceptre, or dashed in pieces by his iron rod.

https://biblehub.com/commentaries/numbers/24-17.htm

Tim appears to be unaware that this particular prophecy of Balaam is proof that the Wise Men (Magi) came from Persia.

and that the appearance of a star in Israel was a sign of the Messiah's coming is certain from Matthew 2:1 of which the Magi were informed by Zoroastres (e) their founder, who, being of Jewish extract, had got it from this prophecy of Balaam; and it is as evident that the Jews expected the appearance of an extraordinary star at the time of the Messiah's coming; for so they say more than once, in an ancient book of theirs (f), that when the"Messiah shall be revealed, a bright and shining star shall arise in the east;''which expectation must be founded on this prophecy

https://biblehub.com/commentaries/numbers/24-17.htm

Elsewhere Tim says the star appeared as an eagle and this connects it to Philippine prophecy. Discussing The Book of The Bee Tim writes:

The footnote for this point offers another confirmation that scholars knew the Star appeared two years prior to the Wise Men arriving in Jerusalem. They knew this was not actually a Star, as we see them, but far brighter, which is an excerpt in concept from Revelation of the Magi. That further details another point, which also brings attention to the Philippines, as it says the Star appeared in the form of an eagle. That is the national symbol of the Philippines to this day and that eagle appears in prophecy. It is the largest eagle on Earth. Within the Star was the form of a young child, (which is also a direct quote from Revelation of the Magi). 

pg. 61

So, now the star was an eagle or in the shape of an eagle? Where is that in Revelation of the Magi? Where is that anywhere? Tim simply grabs on to whatever he thinks will help promote his false cause. In this case a footnote mentions a legend about the star appearing as an eagle, the eagle is associated with the Philippines, the Magi came from the Philippines, therefore it all fits! Leave it to Tim to use a footnote as a source rather than finding the reference to which the footnote points. 

The fact is the Star Child who appears in Revelation of the Magi and says 

"my Father, who has sent me to fulfill everything that was spoken about me in the entire world and in every land by unspeakable mysteries"

is most certainly not Jesus Christ. The only mysteries Jesus fulfilled were those in Israel, the law and the prophets, not those "in the entire world and every land." This heretical doctrine is enough to dismiss Revelation of the Magi as bunk.

In four articles I have now dismantled Timothy Jay Schwab's arguments for Revelation of the Magi proving the Magi originated in the Philippines and his arguments that the content of the text is inspired. He is wrong on every count. Perhaps there will be more to say at a later date.