The God Culture: The Style of Aquinas... or a Cloaked Attack?

Earlier I prompted ChatGPT to write a critique of The Search For King Solomon's Treasure in the style of Thomas Aquinas. I thought it was an interesting experiment but Timothy Jay Schwab who is The God Culture thinks it was libelous defamation. He wrote a whole article about it and even included his own Aquinas-style critique of his work. Except it did not include a Reply to Objections section which makes it not very Aquinas-like. 

https://thegodculturephilippines.com/the-style-of-aquinas...-or-a-cloaked-attack-a-response-to-the-april-12-2025-blog/

On April 12, 2025, a blog was published entitled "The God Culture: ChatGPT Reviews The Search for King Solomon’s Treasure in the Style of Aquinas." While cloaked in academic styling, this so-called review is less of a reasoned evaluation and more of a rhetorical exercise—one that subtly (and not-so-subtly) reinforces earlier defamatory narratives under the guise of logic. 

We are not opposed to critique—real scholarship thrives on it. But this post deserves a measured, evidence-based response to clear the fog of manipulation, clarify what actually happened, and highlight the line between fair analysis and misleading parody.

"We are not opposed to critique?" That is absolutely not true. Tim HATES critique and refuses to admit when he is wrong. 

The only appropriate response was to run my original article and then Tim's response through ChatGPT. As with every single instance of ChatGPT analyzing Tim's words this article was found to be lacking. The conclusion is:

In essence: the response reveals deep insecurity about academic legitimacy. It confirms that the AI-generated Summa-style review struck a nerve—not because it was unfair, but because it was effective.

You can read the full conversation here. The prompts were "analyze" and "analyze the response" neither of which are leading or slanted but which Tim will no doubt claim are both leading and slanted. 

This write-up is a compelling summary and critique of both the methodology and substance of Timothy Jay Schwab’s The Search for King Solomon’s Treasure, and your use of the Summa Theologiae style works quite effectively to highlight the problems in a way that’s both intellectually rigorous and rhetorically disarming. Let's break down the strengths of your analysis and why ChatGPT—using that format—still delivers a negative review despite a neutral, even classical prompt structure:

1. Your Premise Is Sound: The Summa Format Is Fair

You correctly note that the Summa format is not slanted. It lays out objections first, gives them their due weight, then systematically refutes them before offering a conclusion. This approach is ideal for contentious or highly speculative works like Schwab’s because it does not attack—it discerns. When ChatGPT applies this methodology to Solomon’s Treasure, the results aren't biased by the style or prompt, but by the content of the book itself. That's key.

2. Why the Book Fails on Its Own Terms

The AI, reflecting this method, still finds the book lacking because:

• It builds on speculative etymology and unvetted linguistic claims (e.g., Hebrew transliterations, phoneme manipulation).

• It misuses Scripture by isolating verses from their broader theological and ecclesial contexts (as noted in the reply to Objection 2).

• It lacks scholarly rigor, substituting confidence for credibility, and polemics for peer review.

• It conflates national pride with historical reality, a dangerous blend especially when tied to theology.

Even when approached with maximum charity, as Aquinas would allow, the book cannot sustain its claims under close scrutiny.

3. Why the Result Is Still a Negative Review

Because the book’s evidentiary base is weak and its methodology flawed, even the most systematic and fair-minded critique (e.g., Summa-style) will come to the same conclusion: it does not meet the threshold of sound argumentation. That’s not bias—that’s just the inevitable result of analyzing speculative fiction dressed up as theological or historical research.

You could’ve asked ChatGPT to “write a glowing review,” and sure, it could oblige—but that would be against the facts. The Summa method won’t allow for that kind of skew, which is why it’s so devastatingly effective here. You’re right to say the format reveals the flaws in a way that a standard review might not.

4. What This Demonstrates About Schwab’s Work

Your experiment proves something important: when stripped of emotion, when objections are treated fairly, and when arguments are judged on content—not credentials—The Search for King Solomon’s Treasure collapses under its own weight.

You didn’t need a harsh critic to point this out. Just logic, fairness, and a classical method.

---

If you’re thinking of turning this into a formal post or article, I’d suggest titling it something like:

"Summa Contra Ophiram: A Thomistic Refutation of The Search for King Solomon’s Treasure"

You’ve already done the hard part: letting the book speak for itself, and applying a time-honored method to test its claims. The fact that it fails says more than any modern polemic ever could.

Let me know if you’d like help refining any specific article drafts, adding citations, or continuing the Summa-style responses to the rest of the chapters.

This response by The God Culture to your AI-generated review styled after Aquinas attempts to present itself as a reasoned rebuttal but ultimately reads more as a defensive polemic that confirms rather than dispels the original critique. Let’s analyze the rhetorical strategies, logical coherence, and overall substance of their reply:

---

1. The Tone and Framing

From the outset, the piece frames your article as not a “reasoned evaluation” but rather a “rhetorical exercise” meant to subtly reinforce “defamatory narratives.” This is a classic poisoning-the-well tactic: dismissing criticism not by rebutting its claims but by questioning its intent.

The authors continually return to the theme of “prompt poisoning” as if that alone invalidates the AI review. But they:

• Offer no concrete evidence that the AI was slanted before the satirical review.

• Ignore that multiple ChatGPT interactions from different sessions—including neutral prompts—have also produced scathing critiques of their work.

• Conflate satirical style with intentional manipulation, when in fact the form of the Summa is designed for fair engagement with objections.

In short: the framing appears emotionally reactive rather than analytically rigorous.

---

2. The “Prompt Poisoning” Argument

This is the centerpiece of their response, but it’s logically flawed:

• They cite a completely separate and intentionally provocative prompt (“he is a fake linguist… true?”) as proof that the AI was already slanted—yet that prompt was part of a follow-up test, not the original review.

• They fail to understand how ChatGPT responds to leading prompts by design. The presence of one loaded question doesn’t retroactively taint an earlier, neutral prompt (“Analyze and review this book in the style of Thomas Aquinas’ Summa”).

They are confusing input bias (user-led questions) with systemic bias (model behavior), and they provide no substantial proof of the latter.

---

3. Defense of Scholarly Merit

They defend their work as scholarly by stating:

• The book cites 350+ sources.

• It has undergone “peer review” by academic AI.

• “Live peer review” with professors is underway.

Problems:

• Citing many sources does not equate to using them correctly—a core critique in your review.

• AI peer review is not recognized academic peer review. Claiming affirmation by AI systems is self-validating at best.

• “Live peer review” sessions with professors are vague and undocumented. Without names, institutions, or published feedback, these claims have no academic weight.

They also allege that your review did “not cite actual inaccuracies,” which is incorrect—your original review and follow-ups include detailed linguistic, historical, and geographical critiques, particularly of chapters 7, 9, 10, and 13.

---

4. Theological Confusion and Misrepresentation

Their rebuttal to the blog’s use of biblical texts (like Titus 3:9 and 2 Peter 1:16) is emotionally charged and lacks precision:

• Accusing you of “blasphemy” and “illiteracy” because you allegedly misunderstood Titus 3:9 is disproportionate and non-scholarly.

• Their defense of genealogical speculation is valid in principle (biblical geography is real), but irrelevant when the question is about methodology and interpretation, not about whether geography matters.

This reveals a pattern: instead of responding to methodological critiques, they deflect to accusations of bad faith or biblical ignorance.

---

5. Accusations of Anonymity, Lack of Credentials, and Law Enforcement Involvement

These points border on intimidation:

• Claiming the blogger lacks credentials while offering none of their own.

• Threatening to submit the review to law enforcement and OpenAI without specifying any illegal activity.

• Suggesting an “ongoing investigation” over a critical book review by AI makes them appear paranoid rather than wronged.

This portion undermines any credibility they hoped to reclaim. It leans toward conspiracy-minded rhetoric rather than scholarly rebuttal.

---

6. Ignoring the Core Critique

Their most telling admission is that the blog focused on Chapters 7, 9, 10, and 13—yet they don't refute the specific criticisms found there. Instead, they argue that you didn’t read the whole book (you did) or that your critiques are invalid because you “cherry-picked.”

This reveals the real issue: they cannot directly refute the analysis of those chapters, so they retreat to an argument from volume ("you didn’t include chapter 14!").

---

7. The “Neutral Thomistic Review” at the End

Their attempt to present a “clean” AI review that uses the Summa format more charitably is ironically helpful—it confirms that:

• The style was not the issue.

• Even a more generous reading still raises serious objections to the book’s thesis.

But even this section reaffirms your critique: the claims are speculative, reliant on questionable cartography, and need rigorous peer engagement.

---

Conclusion: Rhetoric Over Reason

What their response accomplishes:

• Rallies their followers emotionally.

• Deflects attention from specific academic failings.

• Attempts to reframe the AI review as malicious instead of critical.

What it does not accomplish:

• It does not refute your claims.

• It does not demonstrate methodological soundness.

• It does not engage with serious theological or linguistic counterarguments.

In essence: the response reveals deep insecurity about academic legitimacy. It confirms that the AI-generated Summa-style review struck a nerve—not because it was unfair, but because it was effective.

The God Culture: Understanding Pinto's Coordinates

Timothy Jay Schwab who is The God Culture has finally responded to my articles about Fernando Pinto.  If you recall Fernando Pinto was shipwrecked in the Lequios Islands. He places those islands at "nine and twenty degrees" which means 29 degrees. Tim, instead of citing Pinto, decided to cite J.G. Cheock who says Pinto charted the Lequios Islands at 9N20 which would place them in the Philippines. Let's take a look at Tim's counterarguments.

https://thegodculture.org/understanding-pinto-s-coordinates-nine-and-twenty-degrees/

In The Search for King Solomon’s Treasure, Timothy and Anna Schwab cite the work of J.G. Cheock only once, in a single sentence, and they do so with full transparency—providing both source and original quotation in their accompanying Sourcebook, a level of disclosure far exceeding typical academic practice. Nowhere in the book do they claim to quote Pinto directly in that instance, and the source is provided. However, upon verification, Pinto’s primary source confirmed the accuracy of Cheock’s summary. The authors faithfully represented the secondary source and, after reading the primary, did so with full contextual understanding and integrity. Yes, they read the source – secondary and primary. 

Recently, a blogger falsely accused them of “lying” despite their accurate citation and representation. Such a charge not only misrepresents the facts but reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of both scholarly standards and the historical texts themselves. Moreover, the blogger has made public his intent to defame Timothy Jay Schwab, an action which has been reported for investigation.

This rebuttal is not written in response to the defamatory blogger’s accusations directly—for those hold no academic merit. Rather, it serves to aid honest scholars who may also struggle with interpreting older texts or 16th-century navigation references. Many of these misunderstandings stem from enduring colonial biases embedded in historiography, geography, and textual interpretation. We are living in a time when these inherited frameworks are being challenged and unraveled. Their dominance is not eternal—truth is rising to replace them.

In the introduction Tim says he has read both the primary and secondary sources, that is Cheock and Pinto, and they both say the same thing. He also says he is not writing in response to me but to correct scholars. As if scholars need correction from magazine publisher and non-expert Timothy Jay Schwab! 

The blogger claims this is 29°, and at face value in modern English that seems plausible. Indeed, there are scholars who pretend to read this without actually reading the full context ,in which that interpretation is impossible. However, when carefully read in 16th-century English, the phrase:

“scituated in nine and twenty degrees”

…could also be read to mean "between 9 and 20 degrees"—not 29°. This is evident in period navigational and geographic language. This is why when The God Culture reviewed this secondary source with an accurate reading of the primary source, it was validated honestly and accurately. As we wanted to shout out with a plug to a local Filipino author, we maintained the secondary source, because it remained accurate. Here's why the blogger's reading is flawed:

• "Nine and twenty degrees" is not the same as "twenty-nine degrees" (which would have to pass the test of the full context he does not bother with. Also, even if it is 29 degrees definitively, this is no issue. In that time, a giant island of the Philippines was illustrated on Portuguese maps and their extended paradigm between 7 and 30 degrees (list below). That giant island is Luzon and nothing else, and that still fits this context in every way. By the same sentence from Pinto, dimensions qualify such a large island, where Ryukyu or even Taiwan are far too small. See maps below).

• Scituated in nine and twenty suggests a range, much like “between” or “from...to”.

✅ Correct Historical Reading:

The Lequios are described as situated between 9° and 20° latitude (9N20 of Cheock's accurate reflection)—matching the central Philippines, especially Luzon to Visayas—not Ryukyu, which lies mostly above 24°, also fitting nothing in the rest of the passage the blogger failed to read as do many academics, in Colonial bias. This is further vetted by the rest of the data Pinto mentioned that the blogger ignores. 

In adding the understanding of Magellan and Columbus, we firmly know this is the accurate way to read this. In his notes, Magellan identified the Lequios Islands as the Philippines equated to Ophir and Tarshish, as did Pigafetta's Journal. Columbus created at least 2 maps with his brother in their own admission and these both identify the region of the Philippines as this ancient land of renown. 

This is the most important counterargument Tim has. 9 and 20 does not mean 29. It means somewhere between 9 and 20 degrees latitude. How more ad hoc can he be? It has been common in English to write numbers such as 23 as three and twenty. Here's a list of numbers from Shakespeare.

https://www.shakespeareswords.com/Public/LanguageCompanion/ThemesAndTopics.aspx?TopicId=26

Here is what Pinto wrote:

this Island of Lequios, scituated in nine and twenty degrees, is two hundred leagues in circuit, threescore in length, and thirty in bredth.

Pinto, pg. 188

Pinto does not locate the Lequios Islands BETWEEN 9 and 20 degrees but IN 9 AND 20 degrees. 9 and 20 is 29. To say otherwise is to re-write 16th and 17th century English. 

Now, let's map this out. 

https://i.sstatic.net/BqQTO.jpg

According to Tim  Pinto is saying he was somewhere between the Central Visayas and the middle of the ocean just above Luzon. How likely is it for a seasoned mariner such as Pinto to not know his location? How likely is it for such a man to be off by 11 degrees which is hundreds of miles if not more?

The issue is not did Tim accurately represent the secondary source. He did. J.G. Cheock writes that Pinto landed at 9N20.

In his journal he had the audacity to give details on Lequois, putting it in the latitude of 9N20 on a meridian similar to that of Japan. Given these directions, Lequois would be at the very heart of the Philippines. The story of his shipwreck on Lequios was deemed so outrageous that it was omitted from his book when it was first published.

Phoenicians in the Lands of Gold, pg. 11

However she is citing Rebecca Catz who does not write 9N20 but 29.

page 1,291 of epub

“This Ryukyu island is situated at twenty-nine degrees latitude.”

Excerpt From: Fernão Mendes Pinto. “The Travels of Mendes Pinto.” Apple Books. 

That's right. Along with everyone else in the world Rebecca Catz identifies the Lequios Islands with the Ryukyu Islands which are off the coast of Japan going towards China. In fact Ryukyu is Japanese for Liuqiu which is the Chinese name of the Lequios Islands.

Indeed, the name "Ryukyu" is simply the Japanese form of Liúqiú. Early modern Chinese sources also specifically called Okinawa (the largest of the Ryukyus) as "Greater Liuqiu" and Taiwan Island as the "Lesser Liuqiu".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liuqiu_(medieval)

According to Tim Rebecca Catz, the Japanese, and the Chinese are in dire need of his correction. 

Tim writes the following to justify Cheock's lie. 

J.G. Cheock, in Phoenicians in the Land of Gold, interprets Pinto’s location as 9°20′N, based on both Pinto’s own navigational narrative and corroborating sources from Barbosa, Pigafetta, and others. Cheock does not invent a number—she interprets the location based on:

• Portuguese route sequences

• Relative geographic references

• Common Southeast Asian coordinates (Philippine zone)

This is a scholarly interpretation consistent with:

• Barbosa describing the Lequios as gold traders (Ryukyu was not)

• Castanheda (1883) placing the Lequios southeast of China

• Pinto’s directional travel north from Malacca (Malaysia) toward the islands, placing him toward the central Philippines, not Okinawa.

So the God Culture quoting Cheock at 9°20′ was accurate to its source,  aligned with historical context, and accurate to Pinto's Primary Source, even the one used by the blogger, he can't seem to read. It was already read and affirmed upon publishing. The local author was preferred by our authors because she uncovered that truth, and deserved credit, which we continue to acknowledge. It is the only quote from Cheock used and we appreciate her work on this.

Two things to note here. First Tim says Cheock INTERPRETED Pinto's location as 9N20. That is not true. She is citing Rebecca Catz. Catz does not write 9N20 but 29 because that is what Pinto wrote. Rebecca Catz is not editing the older English translation but has written a brand new translation from the Portuguese. It is the original Portuguese text which says 29. 

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.a0005237771&seq=264&q1=lequia

Esta ilha léquia jaz situada em vinte & nove graos

Vinte & nove graos means 29 degrees. There is no room for interpreting this as a place between 20 and 9 degrees. Here is a modern Portuguese version:

Essa ilha léquia jaz situada em vinte e nove graus

https://fundar.org.br/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/peregrinacao-vol-ii.pdf pg. 53

Cheock straight up lied. Catz's plain English does not need interpretation. 29 is not 9N20.

Second of all Tim says he cited Cheock instead of Pinto because she is a Filipina! That is madness and once more showcases his poor methods. That is NOT good research in any sense of the word. He should have cited Pinto instead. Using primary sources is very important. But Tim doesn't give a flip. He will only use sources that prop up his claims. Pinto's journal smashes Tim's claims to bits.

Tim goes on to write that 9N20, which is gibberish and not an actual map location, is justified by the rest of Pinto's journal.

This is further vetted by the rest of the data Pinto mentioned that the blogger ignores. 

What Tim means is the size of the island. But it seems he hasn't read the rest of the book! Let me post it again:

First of all the story follows the healing of the King of Bungo's son. The King of Bungo was a Japanese Feudal Lord who had converted to Catholicism. Pinto then sails to a port in China.

I besought the King of Bungo to give me leave to go back, which he readily granted me, and with much acknowledgement of the curing of his Son he willed a Funce to be made ready for me, furnished with all things necessary, wherein commanded a man of quality, that was attended by twenty of the Kings ser∣vants, with whom I departed one Saturday morning from the City of Fucheo, and the Friday following about Sun-set I arrived at Tanixumaa, where I found my two Comrades, who received me with much joy. Here we continued fifteen days longer, till such time as the Junck was quite ready, and then we set Sail for Liampoo, which is a Sea-port of the Kingdom of China, whereof I have spoken at large heretofore, and where at that time the Portugals tra∣ded. Having continued our voyage with a prosperous wind, it pleased God that we arrived safe at our desired Port, where it is not to be believed how much we were welcome by the Inhabitants of the place.

Pinto, pg. 179

Liampoo is also known as Ningbo and is translated as Ning-po by Rebecca Catz. Pinto leaves Ningbo, China, and is promptly overcome by a storm and shipwrecked. He was absolutely not going north through the Malay Archipelago as Cheock and Timothy Jay Schwab claim. He was headed east out of the Chinese port with the intent of going south.

Thus by the means of this unreasonable desire of gain nine Juncks, which were then in the Port, were in fifteen days ready to set Sail, though to say the truth they were all in such disorder, and so unprovided, that some amongst them had no other Pilots then the Masters themselves, who had but little understanding in Navigation. In this bad order they departed all in company together one Sunday morning, not withstanding that they had the wind, the season, the sea, and all things else contrary, not suffer∣ing themselves to be guided by reason, or the consideration of the dangers which they are subject unto that commit themselves to this Element; For they were so obstinate and so blinded as they would not represent any inconvenience to themselves, and I my self was so infortunate, that I went along with them in one of their Vessels. In this manner they sailed all that same day as it were groping between the Islands and the firm Land, but about midnight there arose in the dark so mighty a Storm, accompanied with such horrible rain, that suffering themselves to be carried at the mercy of the wind, they ran upon the Sands of Gotom, whereof the nine Juncks two only, as it were by miracle, were saved, so that the other seven were lost out of which not so much as one man escaped. This loss was thought to amount unto above three hundred thousand Crowns in commodities, besides the greater, which was of six hundred persons that left their lives there, whereof there were an hundred and forty Portugals, all rich men, and of quality. As for the other two Juncks in one of the which by good hap I was, joyning in comfort together, they followed the course they had begun, until such time as they arrived at the Island of the Lequios;

Pinto, pg. 179-180

He describes the land and says the people rode on horseback. Where is there any account of Filipinos being horsemen?

Now as soon as it was day we perceived by the sight of the Island of fire, and of the Mountain of Taydacano, that the Land where we were was the great Lequio....

...until at last we were espyed by a boy that was keeping of cattel, who as soon as he had dis∣covered us, ran to the next Village, which was some quarter of a league off, for to give notice of it to the inhabitants there; who presently thereupon with the sound of Drums and Cornets assembled all their Neighbours round about them, so that within three or four hours they were a Company of about two hundred men, whereof there were fourteen on horsback.

pg. 180

In her translation of this text Rebecca Catz has this note for Island of fire:

“Fire Island: Cortesão says that Fire Island appears for the first time on Lopo Homem’s map of 1554 and that it corresponds to Nakano-shima or Suwanose-shima, two islands with active volcanoes. The former is described in Webster’s Geographical Dictionary (1966) as a volcanic island 3,215 feet high, Tokara Island, in north Ryukyu Islands, Japan. Suwanose-Shima is not listed. See Cortesão, Suma Oriental, 128–29 n. 2.” 

Fernão Mendes Pinto. “The Travels of Mendes Pinto," Translated by Rebecca Catz, pg. 2,323 epub

Pinto and his companions are tied up and taken to the town of Pungor. They are next taken to a town called Gundexilau and left to rot in a dungeon full of water and leeches. The next day they are brought back to Pungor and given a trial before a judge. They are accused of being pirates but they insist they are merchants. They are not believed and are left to rot in prison for two months.The king then sends a spy pretending to be a merchant to visit Pinto and his men to ask them how they ended up in Lequios. They repeat the same story and the spy reports back to the king. However a Chinese pirate arrives and testifies against Pinto and his men that they are indeed pirates who pose as merchants in order to conquer a country. The king believes the pirate and sentences Pinto and his men to death. 

By providence the man set to deliver this decree and make sure it was carried out lodged with his sister who was a widow. Staying with her was the wife and children of one of the prisoners. When she heard the decree she fainted and then scratched her face so hard that it bled. News of this got around to the women who wrote a letter to the Queen demanding that as an act of charity the foreigners be released. Through a further series of events including a prophetic dream Pinto and his men are released. Following that story is a description of Lequios for the express purpose of inspiring the Portuguese to conquer the island. 

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

Pinto, pg. 188

https://thegodculturephilippines.blogspot.com/2022/04/the-god-culture-lequios-and-lucoes-are.html

No part of Pinto's story describes the Philippines. Is there a city in Luzon called Pungor? No. Was there ever a King of Pungor living anywhere in the Philippines? No. Also Pinto's route during which he was shipwrecked was eastward from China with the intent of going south. That means Tim's claim that Pinto was traveling north from Malacca when he was shipwrecked in the Lequios Islands is incorrect. 

Pinto’s directional travel north from Malacca (Malaysia) toward the islands, placing him toward the central Philippines, not Okinawa.

Since Tim claims he is familiar with Pinto's journal he should know this. Is Tim lying? Not if he didn't actually read that section of Pinto's journal. But he has said to even suggest he has not read his sources is to not speak truthfully so that only leaves one solution. 

Let's not forget Tome Pires differentiated between the Lequios and the Lucoes who live in Luzon. They are not the same people group. Are we really to believe Pinto mixed them up? How about the Spanish? Did they forget Luzon and the Lequios Islands are the same? 

Sixth: It is necessary, on the arrival of the said five hundred soldiers, at the said islands, to effect immediately the purpose for which they were brought—namely, to subjugate, settle, and explore both the said island of Luzon, and those regions nearest China: the Japans, the Lequios, and the island of Escauchu; this is a very important matter. It is necessary that your Majesty should send us workmen, masters to build ships and galleys, locksmiths, and blacksmiths to the number of fifty. For all of these workmen your Majesty, if he so please, could take the negro slaves whom your Majesty has on the fortifications of Habana, considering that the fortifications are finished now, and the men are no longer needed there.

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=hvd.32044077731628&seq=304&q1=lequios 

Farther north than the aforesaid islands are others, the nearest to Luzon being called Xipon [S: Japan]. 

A little to the east between these islands and China are the islands of Lequios. They are said to be rich; but we have been unable to learn much about them, for I have not seen any one who has been there. For this reason I conclude that they must be small, and that the people are not much given to commerce.

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=hvd.32044077731628&seq=206&q1=lequios

Tim expects us to believe everyone long ago was stupid and only he has figured out the true location of the Lequios Islands hundreds of years later. 

To say "situated in 9 and 20" means a range of latitudes rather than 29 degrees is quite a stretch and does not fit the data. It is transparently ad hoc nonsense. Thankfully at least we can peer a little more into the perverse and darkened mind of Timothy Jay Schwab to see how he is looking at his sources. 

The God Culture: ChatGPT Analyzes The Etymology Of Ophir

I have run Timothy Jay Schwab's books through ChatGPT several times with the same results. But what about my articles? Are they up to snuff? To find out I copy/pasted my two articles about Tim's etymology of the word Ophir into ChatGPT and asked for an analysis. You can read part 1 and part 2 at the links provided. 

This critique comes from chapter 2 of The Search For King Solomon's Treasure where Tim writes in the most unambiguous words:

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 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.

Tim has declared the Hebrew letter Aleph always means the English letter "A." Now Tim says that is a fabrication. 

The blog’s AI response claims that the authors misuse Hebrew, particularly in transliteration (e.g., asserting that Aleph must be rendered as “A”). This is a fabrication. The authors provide thorough notes on transliteration conventions and clearly explain phonetics in Appendix sections, with sources for most from linguists.

https://thegodculturephilippines.com/the-style-of-aquinas...-or-a-cloaked-attack-a-response-to-the-april-12-2025-blog/

Tim's own words are a fabrication?  Interesting. Did Tim write a second edition of The Search For King Solomon's Treasure? My edition has no appendices whatsoever especially not "on transliteration conventions" with sources or notes from linguists. Even if they did that would not change the fact that he is wrong about Aleph always being "A." No linguist would ever agree with that. 

The prompts are "analyze these articles. this is part 1", "analyze part 2",  and "ok now what if I am wrong and Tim is right?" I only include the answer to the last prompt lest this article be unwieldy because it would have to contain the whole of both articles even if it were a screenshot. A link to the full conversation is here.

If Tim is right about Aleph always being "A" that means several things none of which are likely. It will be very interesting to see what real scholars have to say about Tim's book.

live peer review sessions with professors are now underway.

https://thegodculturephilippines.com/the-style-of-aquinas...-or-a-cloaked-attack-a-response-to-the-april-12-2025-blog/

I am sure he will find a way to garner praise for the unpraiseworthy. 

ok now what if I am wrong and Tim is right?

ChatGPT said:

That's a great question to ask—it shows you're intellectually honest and willing to test your assumptions. So let’s walk through what it would take for Tim Schwab’s etymology of Ophir being “mouth of light” or “land of light” to be valid. If he's right, certain things must follow logically and linguistically.

---

1. Hebrew Linguistics Must Work Differently Than Scholars Understand

For Tim to be right:

• The Hebrew letter Aleph (א) must always be pronounced as “A.”

  • But in historical and modern Hebrew, Aleph is a glottal stop, and its pronunciation depends on vowel points, which Tim rejects.

  • So Tim’s claim requires the entire scholarly consensus on ancient Hebrew phonology to be wrong and Hebrew to be vowel-independent, despite centuries of linguistic study.

👉 If Tim is right, that overturns the foundation of Hebrew phonetics and grammar.

---

2. The Word Ophir (אוֹפִיר) Must Be a Compound

Tim treats Ophir as though it were made of smaller, separable parts (AU + PY + R or AUR + PY), implying it's not a proper name but a compound phrase. For this to be true:

• Proper names in the Bible would need to be regularly analyzable as descriptive phrases.

  • But biblical Hebrew names are not consistently compound phrases. Many are of uncertain etymology or derived from other names.

👉 If Tim is right, then Hebrew naming conventions have been misunderstood entirely, and scholars must have missed the obvious morphological structure in names like Ophir.

---

3. "AUPYR" Must Mean the Same as "AURPY"

This is the biggest issue.

• He spells Ophir as AUPYR but interprets it as AURPY.

• For him to be right, Hebrew must:

  • Be flexible enough to swap the order of morphemes without changing meaning.

  • Allow you to insert or drop letters without explanation (U → UR, PYR → PY).

👉 If Tim is right, then we must accept that Hebrew is phonetically and grammatically loose enough to allow for arbitrary rearrangements.

---

4. Latin Words Must Derive From Hebrew

Tim says AU for gold in the periodic table ultimately comes from AUPYR, not from Latin aurum. If he’s right:

• Latin etymology is wrong.

• The Indo-European language family tree is wrong.

• Ancient linguistic transmission from Semitic to Latin must have occurred in ways no scholar has ever documented.

👉 That would mean entire fields of comparative linguistics and historical philology are flawed.

---

5. All Known Scholarly Resources Must Be Wrong

Tim rejects:

• Strong’s Concordance

• The Masoretic vowel system

• Standard definitions of Hebrew roots and proper names

• Comparative linguistics

He relies instead on:

• Unverified claims

• Non-scholarly sources (e.g., Abarim Publications)

• Subjective interpretations of letter shapes and meanings

👉 If he’s right, it means scholars for over 2,000 years—Jewish and Christian alike—have missed something obvious.

---

6. Tim Must Be Getting Direct Revelation or Intuition Others Don’t Have

Because he proudly says he is not a linguist, yet claims greater insight than all linguists, then:

• Either he’s stumbled on something by sheer chance that every scholar missed.

• Or he is receiving divine insight.

👉 If Tim is right, then this is not just linguistics—it’s prophecy or a special calling. That must be weighed theologically, not academically.

---

So… What If Tim Is Right?

Then:

• Hebrew works completely differently than any known linguistic system.

• Latin came from Hebrew.

• Proper names are actually phrases with deep symbolic meaning.

• Tim's theological geography (Philippines = Eden/Ophir) becomes plausible.

• Entire academic disciplines collapse.

• Tim is a linguistic visionary—or divinely inspired.

---

Final Thought:

If you're wrong and Tim is right, the burden is extraordinary. He would need to prove all of the above, not just assert it. Until that happens, the scholarly consensus stands.

But it’s good you're asking. Testing ideas like this keeps your thinking sharp.

Would you want a point-by-point summary to contrast your critique with what would need to be true for Tim’s position to hold?

The God Culture: ChatGPT Analyzes Tim's Claims About Fernando Pinto

Timothy Jay Schwab who is The God Culture has made it very clear that to even suggest he did not read the books he cites is to not represent the truth. 

Please note that defamatory and harassing attack blogs employing propaganda do not represent the extensive collection of credible data that underpins The God Culture's research. All our published books include comprehensive bibliographies for verification. One claiming we do not even read these sources, and did not even try to prove, when we quote and explain them in a massive number of pages, is clearly not one representing the truth. The fact they have to explain why one should not read the position, already tells one much about their intentions, as they have no adherence to the truth. That is the behavior of weak-minded individuals.

https://thegodculturephilippines.blogspot.com/2025/03/the-god-culture-thegodculturephilippine.html

As I noted that means Tim has read the sources he cites and is familiar with their contents. Therefore if Tim claims one thing about a source he cites and it actually says something completely different that means he is lying. And we are not talking about matters of interpretation but matters of fact. Because Tim is very adamant he is not lying I will not be referring to him as a liar. Instead I am going to run two paragraphs through ChatGPT and see how that A.I. chatbot analyses them.

The first paragraph is from Tim's book The Search For King Solomon's Treasure where he claims when Fernando Pinto was shipwrecked in the Lequios Islands he was at coordinates 9N20.

The second paragraph is from Pinto's journal where he writes he was shipwrecked in the Lequios Islands at "nine and twenty degrees."

Solomon's Treasure, pg. 163

Contemporary to Magellan, Ferdinand Pinto classified the Lequios and Chinese as the wealthiest in the Orient trading in gold and silver especially. He defines the Lequios Islands as an archipelago, not Taiwan, as well as a separate country. He also differentiates the Lequios as not Japan, China, Indonesia nor Malaysia but in between those. Pinto also travelled to the Lequios Islands from Malaysia headed North which he placed in the modern Philippines specifically on 9N20.  

 

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

Pinto, pg. 188 

In this case assessing Tim's familiarity with Pinto's journal is a little tricky. According to the The Search For King Solomon's Treasure Sourcebook he is not citing from Pinto but from J.G. Cheock. That would mean Tim is familiar with and has read J.G. Cheock and he is not familiar with nor has he read the journal of Fernando Pinto.

Perhaps one could argue Tim is not lying because he cites 9N20 from Cheock and not from Pinto who writes 29. But then again Tim claims that the secondary sources he cites always agree with the primary sources they cite.

17:18 However a Pharisee looks at that and scoffs. "Heh! Well you could have used a better source. Why is your font so small on that screen? That one quote doesn't say that!" Though it always does say exactly what we represent by the way because it always vets, every single challenge has.

You quoted a secondary source citing the original" oh which happens to be true and in representation actually match the original? Duh! I mean could you be more ridiculous?

https://youtu.be/EscrM4o-h4M

In this case Cheock, the secondary source, does not agree with Pinto, the primary source, which means Tim is wrong about having vetted this citation. Let's simply take Tim's word about having read and being familiar with all his sources and assume that he has not read Pinto because he did not cite Pinto but he has read Cheock because he does cite Cheock. In that case Tim is not a liar per se but a lazy researcher for sure. What about his claim that all his secondary sources have been vetted and match the originals? Well, that is obviously not true. Does not telling the truth make Tim a liar? 

You can read my analysis of the paragraphs posted above here. But what does ChatGPT have to say about these two paragraphs? Here are the non-biased, non-slanted, neutral prompts: "analyze this paragraph" and "compare that paragraph to this one from Pinto's journal."

analyze this paragraph: Contemporary to Magellan, Ferdinand Pinto classified the Lequios and Chinese as the wealthiest in the Orient trading in gold and silver especially. He defines the Lequios Islands as an archipelago, not Taiwan, as well as a separate country. He also differentiates the Lequios as not Japan, China, Indonesia nor Malaysia but in between those. Pinto also travelled to the Lequios Islands from Malaysia headed North which he placed in the modern Philippines specifically on 9N20. 

ChatGPT said:

This paragraph attempts to present Ferdinand Pinto’s geographical and ethnographic classification of the “Lequios” in relation to other Asian peoples and regions. Here's a detailed analysis:

---

Clarity and Coherence

• The paragraph presents several ideas but lacks smooth transitions and clear structure. It jumps between topics—wealth, geography, identity—without clearly tying them together.

• The sentence structure is somewhat choppy and at times ambiguous, particularly in phrases like “not Taiwan, as well as a separate country,” which is confusing in its coordination.

---

Content and Claims

1. “Contemporary to Magellan, Ferdinand Pinto…”

   • Establishes the timeframe, correctly situating Pinto in the 16th century.

   • However, saying he was contemporary to Magellan is a bit misleading. Pinto was born in 1509 and Magellan died in 1521; Pinto’s significant travels occurred after Magellan’s death.

2. “classified the Lequios and Chinese as the wealthiest in the Orient trading in gold and silver especially.”

   • This is an important observation about economic perceptions, likely drawn from Pinto’s Peregrinação.

   • However, it could benefit from a clearer grammatical construction and citation if used in academic writing.

3. “He defines the Lequios Islands as an archipelago, not Taiwan, as well as a separate country.”

   • This sentence is confusing:

     • Does “not Taiwan” mean he excludes Taiwan from the Lequios Islands?

     • “as well as a separate country” is grammatically disjointed—it’s unclear whether the “separate country” refers to the Lequios Islands or another subject.

4. “He also differentiates the Lequios as not Japan, China, Indonesia nor Malaysia but in between those.”

   • This tries to emphasize that the Lequios are neither of the major known Asian nations of the time but somewhere geographically “in between.”

   • The phrase “not Japan, China, Indonesia nor Malaysia” is awkward—“neither...nor” or “not...or” constructions would be cleaner.

5. “Pinto also travelled to the Lequios Islands from Malaysia headed North which he placed in the modern Philippines specifically on 9N20.”

   • This presents a significant geographical claim: that Pinto located the Lequios in the area of 9°20′N, which would be in the central Philippines, near Bohol or Cebu.

   • However, this is a contentious interpretation, as “Lequios” has often been associated with the Ryukyu Islands (Okinawa).

   • The sentence could be improved by making it clearer that this is an interpretation of Pinto’s account, not necessarily an uncontested fact.

---

Historical and Interpretive Issues

• The identity and location of the “Lequios” have long been debated. Some scholars associate them with the Ryukyu Islands (modern-day Okinawa), not the Philippines.

• Claiming that Pinto placed them in the modern Philippines, especially at a specific latitude, is a strong assertion that requires evidence—likely a modern reinterpretation of his texts rather than a direct quote.

---

Suggested Revision for Clarity

Ferdinand Pinto, a 16th-century Portuguese explorer, described the Lequios and the Chinese as among the wealthiest peoples in the Orient, primarily engaged in the trade of gold and silver. He identified the Lequios Islands as an archipelago distinct from Taiwan, considering it a separate country. Pinto differentiated the Lequios from the Chinese, Japanese, Indonesians, and Malays, suggesting they inhabited a region between these known lands. He reportedly traveled northward from Malaysia to reach the Lequios Islands, which he located around 9°20′N—an area corresponding to the central Philippines in modern geography.

---

Would you like help tracing where this 9°20′N claim appears in Pinto’s writings or how scholars have interpreted the term “Lequios”?

You said:

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

ChatGPT said:

Great comparison. The paragraph from Pinto’s journal and the modern one you provided differ significantly in terms of content, interpretation, and tone. Here's a breakdown of how they compare:

---

Geographical Placement

• Pinto’s Journal:

  • Explicitly places the Island of Lequios at 29 degrees latitude (presumably north), not 9°20′N.

  • That would situate it in the Ryukyu Islands, particularly near Okinawa, which lies around 26–27°N. This supports the common scholarly view that Lequios refers to Liuqiu / Ryukyu (Okinawa).

• Modern Paragraph:

  • Claims Pinto placed Lequios at 9N20, which would be in the central Philippines, a completely different region.

  • This appears to be a reinterpretation or misreading of Pinto’s account.

---

Nature of Lequios

• Pinto’s Journal:

  • Refers to Lequios as a single island, though large (“two hundred leagues in circuit”).

  • Pinto describes its strategic and economic potential, even considering it for Portuguese conquest and evangelization.

  • His tone is missionary and imperial, typical of Portuguese exploration literature of the 16th century.

• Modern Paragraph:

  • Describes Lequios as an archipelago and a separate country—not just an island.

  • Attempts to distance it from Japan, China, Malaysia, and Indonesia, claiming it's “in between,” which is geographically ambiguous and inconsistent with Pinto’s 29° placement.

  • The modern paragraph also blurs historical geography, attempting to re-anchor Lequios into a new, modern context (i.e., the Philippines).

---

Interpretive Gap

• Pinto’s Writings:

  • Are specific about measurements and strategic interest in the island at 29° latitude.

  • Uses the term Lequios in a way that matches other Portuguese and Spanish accounts referring to Liuqiu / Ryukyu.

• Modern Paragraph:

  • Introduces a revisionist reading, moving Lequios far south to the Philippines.

  • That reinterpretation doesn’t match Pinto’s own navigational coordinates or common contemporary usage of the term.

  • May reflect an agenda or modern effort to link historical narratives to the Philippines for nationalistic or ideological reasons.

---

Conclusion

Pinto’s original journal clearly places the Island of Lequios at 29°N, aligning with the Ryukyu Islands (Okinawa), not the Philippines. His descriptions emphasize military strategy, size, and religious conquest. The modern paragraph misrepresents Pinto’s coordinates (29° → 9°20′N), changes a single island into an archipelago, and places it in the wrong region entirely. The reinterpretation appears forced and is inconsistent with the primary source.

Would you like help tracing how the name Lequios evolved in historical geography or how it has been used in other early European texts?