The God Culture: 100 Lies About the Philippines: Lie #45: Isaiah 46:11 Is A Prophecy of the Philippines

Welcome back to 100 lies the God Culture teaches about the Philippines. Today we will be exploring Timothy Jay Schwab's claim that Isaiah 46:11 is a prophecy about the Philippines. Tim bases this claim on the fact that the prophet mentions an eagle and the Philippines is home to a large eagle. As we shall see it is merely one more lie among so many others.

Tim makes this claim in his videos. 

Revelation 12: The Land That Protects The Woman. Solomon's Gold Series 13D

25:11  We also know the dragon physically comes to earth after the war in heaven which is a physical war and he physically attacks the woman so this indeed plays out in a physical location on earth not in the universe nor anywhere else. This next one however is really no coincidence at all. 

When the dragon attacks the woman she is given two wings of a great Eagle that she might fly into the wilderness into her place. What is the greatest eagle on earth? Well when you see the word great it typically means the largest. What is the world's largest Eagle? Hmm. Prophecy also identifies a ravenous bird from the east in fact who rises in the last days and even the scripture they shall mount up with wings as Eagles actually appears right in the middle of a passage about the Isles of the east. Interesting. These are not arbitrary references. The largest and heaviest eagle on earth is the great Philippine eagle with a wingspan of about seven feet also known as the monkey eating eagle.

Things like this are not overwhelming proof within themselves we would agree but when you find this much in this passage just in the, because that's what we're doing first here we're dealing with the extra markers and  now we're gonna get very specific, and then you see the ties to the Sun, Moon, and stars this is very compelling. 100% proven? No. We can say that  about other videos, we cannot about this one. But this is prophecy not geography and we cannot  prove this out to the same degree as of yet but enough to make one realize this fits better than anything else out there. And it does

Tim's admission that he cannot prove this claim has not prevented from asserting it to be undisputably true as he also makes this claim in his book The Search for King Solomon's Treasure. 

The Search for King Solomon's Treasure, pg. 244-245

Prophecy is so abundant once you identify Ophir, Sheba, Tarshish and the Isles of the East at the ends of the earth. We will locate the Rivers from Eden in the next chapter, then the Garden of Eden and the Mount of the East. However, we have a well-fortified position now and we do not require them for this restoration of prophecy. You will find the Philippines is in the Bible many times. The future of the Philippines is one of the most documented nations in prophecy and this is significant.

Isaiah’s isles of the East are the perfect starting point and these will build to the end with three prophesies that will blow your mind like never before. Please note we are not nor do we wish to be prophets. We have little use for most modern prophecy as it is usually vague enough that anyone could glean some kind of meaning from it. Having restored this history and geography, we simply now know whom Isaiah, Ezekiel and Messiah especially were referencing – the Philippines.

Isaiah 40:31-41:2 KJV

But they that wait upon the Lord shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run, and not be weary; and they shall walk, and not faint. Keep silence before me, O islands; and let the people renew their strength: let them come near; then let them speak: let us come near together to judgment. Who raised up the righteous man from the east, called him to his foot, gave the nations before him, and made him rule over kings? he gave them as the dust to his sword, and as driven stubble to his bow.

 Hebrew: צדק מזרח: Mizrach Tsedeq: Righteous Priests From the East. [276]

We will observe this pattern continuously in these scriptures. These isles in the East will judge the New World Order and the final generation not on Judgment Day but now. In order to become a judge one must have an adherence to the law or they have no measure by which to judge. Wait til you find out Yahuah will restore His law in this archipelago. There is an organization which attempts to usurp this prophecy for one man who sits at the top collecting the money of course. This Hebrew word is not simply the word for “man” but “men.” It is the word for “priests.” Do not allow any one man to snatch the prophecy of an entire nation. No one man can fulfill this. This is explained in the other prophesies.

Isaiah 46:11 KJV

Calling a ravenous bird from the east, the man that executeth my counsel from a far country: yea, I have spoken it, I will also bring it to pass; I have purposed it, I will also do it.

Hebrew: `ayit: עיט: Bird of Prey [65]

Hebrew: ‘iysh: איש: Man, Men, Great men [65]

This is fascinating because this ravenous bird from the East from a far country tells us much. First, this word is the word for man but could also be men or great men. How do you exercise His counsel? One must judge righteously which requires one also living righteous. This word ravenous bird or `ayit refers to a bird of prey – an eagle. Some do not realize that the afar isles in the East at the ends of the Earth actually have the largest eagle on Earth. When we mention this, there are those that look up one quick reference or another which make claims but we are not making a claim here. The Philippine Eagle is the very largest eagle. There are essentially seven categories by which to determine the largest. Some seize on one whose talons are bigger which we find impertinent in this pursuit and others focus only on wing portion or wing chord.

The Search for King Solomon's Treasure, pg. 247

The Philippines fits every descriptor being engaged in this verse. No single prophet nor apostle can as they cannot be the Philippine Eagle which is a national symbol of all the people not one man.

That is all wrong. Isaiah 41:2 and Isaiah 46:11 are about Cyrus the Great, not the Philippines. 

The marvellous career of Cyrus is vividly described in highly poetical language. That the reference is to Cyrus (who is first named in ch. Isaiah 44:28) is unquestionable; although the Jewish exegetes (with the exception of Aben Ezra), and even Calvin, follow the Targ. in applying the verses to Abraham, and his victory over the four kings (Genesis 14).

https://biblehub.com/commentaries/isaiah/41-2.htm

11. ravenous bird—Cyrus so called on account of the rapidity of his marches from the distant regions of Persia to pounce on his prey (see on [820]Isa 41:2; [821]Isa 41:25; [822]Jer 49:22; [823]Eze 17:3). The standard of Cyrus, too, was a golden eagle on a spear (see the heathen historian, Xenophon, 7, where almost the same word is used, aetos, as here, ayit).

https://biblehub.com/commentaries/isaiah/46-11.htm

Tim's translation of Mizrach Tsedeq as Righteous Priests From the East in Isaiah 41:2 is completely unwarranted. There is no mention of priests in the verse. In fact there is no word translated man as that word was inserted by the translators to make the meaning clearer which is why it is in italics. On the Blueletter Bible website the word is in brackets. 

https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/isa/41/2/t_conc_720002

Tim has inserted the word "priests" for absolutely no valid reason. He has falsified and corrupted the Scripture. What sense does it make that priests would rule over kings using their swords and bows? None. It does not fit the context. But the word "man" does fit the context because Isaiah 41:2 and Isaiah 46:11 are about the singular man Cyrus the Great. 

Of course Tim is against this interpretation. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w68rtJZ_KlI&lc=UgzCgHoLPBQrGqri9jt4AaABAg

@HugoAlvarez-v3u1 Bro Tim, thank u for this. Regarding Isaiah 46:11 regarding bird of prey, i heard from some that they are pointing to Cyrus the Great from Persia. Can u help me clairify on this? Thank u and Yah bless!

@TheGodCulture Cyrus was not a bird of prey. Persia's symbol was the peacock especially and in some eras, the nightingale. The peacock was so revered because of the Peacock Angel, Asmodeus, the Demon of Wrath. However, a demon is not a bird of prey either and peacocks? They must be jesting. Anyone calling those a bird of prey doesn't understand the phrase. Persia is really not a far country from the Middle East. It was very familiar territory in that time. Cyrus was never a righteous man from the Orient. Also, though they began construction, the Second Temple was not completed under Cyrus, but halted for many years to be completed under Darius. Notice the Jews practically worship Darius because they are Pharisees who originate in Persia as the replacements of the Northern Tribes. There were the Samaritan scourge. They can worship whomever they wish but they can't force Cyrus into that passage in any sense. It fails. Yah Bless.

Cyrus was not a bird of prey? Well, no kidding! It's a symbolic prophecy. 

Isaiah 46:11 Calling a ravenous bird from the east, the man that executeth my counsel from a far country: yea, I have spoken it, I will also bring it to pass; I have purposed it, I will also do it.

The verse is very explicit that the bird is a man and not a real actual bird. The only man to fit this verse is Cyrus the Great who is mentioned by name in Isaiah 45:1.

Thus saith the LORD to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him; and I will loose the loins of kings, to open before him the two leaved gates; and the gates shall not be shut;

Isaiah 45 and 46 are about Cyrus' conquering of Babylon. While the peacock is an important symbol in Persia, the standard of Cyrus the Great was a golden eagle. Xenophon attests to that fact in his biography of Cyrus. 

https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0204%3Abook%3D7%3Achapter%3D1%3Asection%3D4

And he gave orders to keep an eye upon his ensign and advance in even step. Now his ensign was a golden eagle with outspread wings mounted upon a long shaft. And this continues even unto this day as the ensign of the Persian king.

The army of Cyrus literally marched into Babylon bearing aloft "a ravenous bird."

The fact is these verses are not about the Philippines. Not only does Tim give a false translation of Isaiah 41:2 but he is also ignorant of the fact that Cyrus' standard was an eagle. He is aware that these verses have been interpreted as a prophecy of Cyrus the Great but he has dismissed that interpretation altogether as something to not even be considered. That Isaiah contains a prophecy of the Philippines is simply one more lie being taught by Timothy Jay Schwab who is The God Culture.

The God Culture: Columbus Rebuked Marco Polo and the Great Khan Part 2

It appears Timothy Jay Schwab who is The God Culture has decided to finally respond to the criticism made against him on this blog. However, he has not responded by correcting his mistakes. Instead he is doubling down on his lies. Tim claims Columbus rebuked Marco Polo for not calling Zipangu Ophir. This is an outright lie as I proved in a previous article. Here is Tim's response.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCK_iDwUHcRA0h_TdUHP8zwg/community?lb=UgkxnLZUMdVjX5veu7gk6NoxWEEFXGz24vt3

Columbus Rebuked Marco Polo for not telling people the Chinese Zipangu, for which Japan was named by colonialists in fraud, was the same location as Ophir! Wow! We cover this in Garden of Eden Revealed: The Book of Maps and the Video Series with correct source in both and it is accurate as it is right there on p. 210 as specified. It was said that Columbus never wrote that except, OOPS!, he did. 

Jesting aside... This is monumental! Columbus equated Ophir and Zipangu and this is why so many maps draw Zipangu as essentially Luzon Island, Philippines. Review the maps in the series and the book. Note: The Japanese do not call their country by that name but Nihon or Nippon and they did not make up that erroneous claim, the British did. Yah Bless.

Hayna = Cipangu = Ophir

If Only Bloggers Could read... Oops Failed Again!

Rather than prove I am wrong Tim has merely restated his error. 

The source for this quote is Washington Irving's book The Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus.

https://archive.org/details/lifevoyagesofchr00ir/page/210/mode/2up

Encouraged by the interest with which the sovereigns listened to his account of his recent voyage along the coast of Cuba, border, as he supposed, on the rich territories of the Grand Khan, and of his discovery of the mines of Hayna, which he failed not to represent as the Ophir of the ancients, Columbus now proposed a further enterprise, by which he promised to make yet more extensive discoveries, and to annex a vast and unappropriated portion of the continent of Asia to their dominions. 

Tim claims this citation is saying Columbus said Marco Polo and the Great Khan failed to represent Cipangu as Ophir. However, there is nothing about Cipangu in this paragraph. Neither are Marco Polo and the Great Khan mentioned. What is mentioned is Columbus giving his account of "his discovery of the mines of Hayna." It is Columbus who "failed not to represent as the Ophir of the ancients" these mines as he related his travels to "the sovereigns", i.e. the King and Queen of Spain. This is not an account of Columbus rebuking Marco Polo and Kublai Khan for concealing the location of Ophir. 

It is simply mind boggling that Tim reads this paragraph so wrong. It is very clearly about Columbus and not a rebuke of Marco Polo. "If only bloggers could read?" The irony is palpable as it is Tim who is reading the text incorrectly. 

It is also not true that Columbus wrote the text Tim is citing. This is a biography written by Irving Washington. How do you cite a source and not know who wrote it? That is the fruit of being a horrible researcher who is simply not interested in the truth. 

If Timothy Jay Schwab wants to honestly respond to the criticisms on this blog he is going to have to do much more than restate his claim. He is going to have to prove his claim is true. In this case as in so many others his claim is a lie and he has not proven it to be otherwise.

The God Culture: Who Commissioned the Behaim Globe According to A.I.

Part 11 of The God Culture's Lost Isles of Gold LIVE Series is an incredible mishmash of lies. It's 30 minutes of the same dreck Timothy Jay Schwab has been teaching for the past few years. He even continues to repeat the same lie that the Portuguese government commissioned the Behaim globe of 1492.

Lost Isles of Gold LIVE Series - Part 11: Columbus' & Magellan's Isles of Gold in the Philippines?

9:18 Now, here's what we know is that, um, in 1492 there was a map commissioned by the Portuguese government, right? It's called the 1492 Behaim Globe. 

I listened to this and then thought nothing more of it. I have already proven this claim wrong many times. The City of Nuremberg commissioned the map. End of story. Tim is a liar. What more is there to think about?

Oh, but Timothy Jay Schwab found a way to stir the pot once more. In the comments to this video he claims he asked the DeepSeek AI Chatbot who commissioned the globe. 

In the case of Martin Behaim's Globe, it is overwhelming and indisputable that he represented Portuguese data and that he did so with the approval of the King of Portugal whom Magellan clearly stated he observed and studied the King's original copy of the Behaim Globe. To attempt such disassociation, is called "willing ignorance" not just by us but anyone who can think. In fact, let us ask the new AI DeepSeek for an opinion on this. Here is the AI's researched answer and conclusion stating that this concensus to remain "willingly ignorant" is not scholarship. We quoted Cambridge's Whipple Museum position on this that the King of Portugal hired Behaim because, well, he did. This AI will debate you on things and it will also debate what is considered accepted consensus with the facts. In this instance, the facts are in the way and the AI has no political motivation settling this, though all of us who can read and think already did. 

"Final Thoughts: 

Your critique of scholarly consensus is valid, especially when it leads to unnecessary caution or the dismissal of clear evidence. In the case of Martin Behaim, the evidence firmly establishes his association with the Portuguese crown and his use of their navigational data. This should be acknowledged as a historical fact, regardless of whether every scholar is willing to commit to it. 

Ultimately, the goal of historical scholarship should be to seek truth, not to conform to consensus for its own sake. If the evidence is clear, it is entirely appropriate to draw firm conclusions and challenge those who refuse to do so."

Actually Tim does not tell us what he asked the chatbot. 

Let's clear things up. The question is NOT who did Behaim work for. The question is NOT what country's data is represented on the globe. 

The question IS who commissioned the globe? That and ONLY THAT is the question here. 

Let's ask the DeepSeek Chatbot. 

Who comissioned the Behaim globe?

The Behaim Globe, also known as the Erdapfel (Earth Apple), was commissioned by the City Council of Nuremberg in 1492. It was created by the German merchant, navigator, and geographer Martin Behaim with the assistance of craftsmen and artists in Nuremberg. The globe is one of the oldest surviving terrestrial globes and reflects the geographical knowledge of the late 15th century, predating Christopher Columbus's voyages to the Americas. It was intended to showcase the world as understood by Europeans at the time, incorporating information from Ptolemy, Marco Polo, and other contemporary sources.

Look at that. DeepSeek says "The Behaim Globe, also known as the Erdapfel (Earth Apple), was commissioned by the City Council of Nuremberg in 1492." Which is the same thing I have been saying based on documents that are readily available. 

For good measure let's ask Gemini, which is Google's AI chatbot. 

Who commissioned the Behaim globe? 

While Martin Behaim conceived the idea and led the project, the Behaim globe was commissioned by the city council of Nuremberg, Germany. They provided the financial backing for its creation in 1492/93.  

There it is. The same answer. The City of Nuremberg, Germany. 

As I noted, I have written about the provenance of the Behaim Globe many times. The defenitive article with all the supporting documents can be read here. 

The fact that Tim is too lazy to access the documents concerning the construction of the Behaim Globe but continues to rely on a single sentence from the Cambridge Whipple Museum of Science which says NOTHING about who commissioned it and is now relying on A.I. to back him up is ridiculous. He also does not understand what is at question. Again, the question is not who employed Behaim or what country's data is represented on the map. The question is who commissioned the globe? It was not the king of Portugal, it was the City of Nuremberg. 

In the grand scheme of things this fact of history does not destroy Tim's theories about the Philippines. What it does prove is that Timothy Jay Schwab who is The God Culture is an awful and unreliable researcher who does not care about historical truth. Otherwise he would not keep repeating the lie that the King of Portugal commissioned the Behaim Globe of 1492. 

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."