The God Culture: Blaspheming the Holy Spirit

Timothy Jay Schwab of The God Culture has been a busy man of late. He has begun once more holding conferences around the nation to delude Filipinos into thinking they are Israelites and that the Philippines is actually Ophir, Tarshish, and Sheba. He has also published a new book in two volumes about the Apocrypha. But before all that he began a new series called "Restoring Creation."

Restoring Creation Series

This series purports to be restoring the truth about the creation narrative in Genesis 1 and 2. However, far from restoring knowledge Tim is actually vomiting forth enormous falsehoods. This article will detail Tim's blasphemous statements against the Holy Ghost. 

The fact is Tim believes the Holy Spirit is not God but a creation and had no role in creation as a creator. This is utter anti-trinitarian blasphemy. I will not be explaining the Trinity or divinity of the Holy Spirit here. This will be a catalogue of Timothy Jay Schwab's blasphemous statements against the Holy Spirit in this series. Remember what Jesus said about such blasphemy:

Matthew 12:31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.

Timothy Jay Schwab of The God Culture is past the point of redemption and if you follow him so are you.  

Restoring Creation: Part 2: Continued... Did Moses Write the First Chapters of Genesis?

35:40 Elohim is the Father and the Son it's plural and it's used because the Father and the Son created.

36:22 Moses wrote Genesis and he wrote Elohim in the beginning because the Elohim he refers to is two, the Father and the Son. 

Restoring Creation: Part 3: What Is the Origin of Genesis? Not Sumer or the Occult!

1:27:47 Yahusha said Moses wrote of me. Hello? He did so in Genesis and Jubilees first and actually if we went back even further uh, when it says "In the beginning Elohim said", right, Elohim created the heavens and the earth, well, that word Elohim is there, not God, by the way. It's Elohim in Hebrew and it's plural. It's two. It's the Father and the Son. Some throw in the Holy Spirit uh, we can't find any Scriptures where the Holy Spirit is a creator, but whatever. 

Restoring Creation: Part 4: Before Creation? What and When Was "In The Beginning?"

2:13 The Holy Spirit as well was there but we just don't have a defined role for Him at that time. Uh, He's not called Elohim. He's not known to be a creator

13:23 Elohim is plural which means it's more than one. So, there's at least two Elohim at creation in the beginning. But see the angels weren't created yet so this is the Father and the Son specifically. Some try to fit the Holy Spirit into that formula and actually we don't have a problem with that, uh, we just never see that in Scripture He's never equated as Elohim in Scripture, uh, so why would we add something that's just plain not there. We're not gonna do that to placate Church doctrine of men. We don't.

33:19 That's a power reserved for Elohim from the beginning which is plural, it is two. 

36:52 When Genesis says in the beginning Elohim, at least two, created the heaven and the earth it means the Father and the Son, John 1 says so. Again, this isn't the only place go to Jubilees and actually Paul also affirms this as well we've covered in other videos. There is no debating that. Again, there are no others even there that would classify as Elohim other than the Holy Spirit who, by the way, is not classified as such. Uh, if that's somehow an oversight in Scripture fine. Uh, He is absolutely a wonderful, beautiful part of this whole formula no doubt. But we don't know what his role was at creation. There's just nothing there for Him. It just says he upon the waters or the face of the deep. That doesn't really tell us anything. Maybe He did something and we're just not seeing it but we're just not seeing it. It's just not there and we're not gonna stretch something that's just not there. 

40:02 Again the world was made by Yahusha with Yahuah, Elohim, plural, defined right here again. That's why it's plural. It is a class of only two at that time. So there's not a lot of research that needs to be done to figure out who it was.   

Restoring Creation: Part 5: Before Creation? The Occult Narrative Scholars Are Following In Error

23:30 There's nothing except for the Father and the Son perhaps the Holy Spirit though there is no Scripture that says He had no beginning such as Melchizedek, Messiah, or the Father. 

26:08 No angels created any of that. No. It didn't happen. It was the Father and the Son. Yes the Holy Spirit was there, too, there's no doubting that. We've never said otherwise. But He's not assigned a role as a Creator nor as Elohim in Scripture. It's just not there. 

Restoring Creation: Part 9: Is Darkness Evil? Or Good?

5:24 Again we already proved there is no time period known as before creation. It's just not there. It's fiction. It is occult fiction we proved. And all that was there previously that we know of is the Father and the Son and perhaps the Holy Spirit. We don't know. Scripture doesn't say. It never identifies Him as having no beginning like as the Father and the Son which it does very clearly.   

6:18 No Scripture identifies the Holy Spirit though in that vein. It just doesn't. I mean do we follow scripture or do we, do we, like to propagate the doctrines of men and beat people up as anti-trinitarians or whatever stupid word they can come up with? What dumb, you know, illiterate ignorance when the word Trinity doesn't even exist in the Bible so who cares about it. When you see the word, the, the word that is you, you do understand that, right? Yeah I'm pretty sure our viewers do. When you see the word Eternal that does not mean they don't have a beginning understand that as well our Spirits are Eternal right but most certainly have beginning. We were created right? Uh, angels are Eternal but they have a creation point. We're actually going to cover that very clearly on the first day. Uh, it's just not there, uh, you know so trying to take, again, a word, uh, out of its own definition, I mean Eternal doesn't mean they've lived forever it means they will live forever. Um, it does not mean they don't have a beginning. So they see that word Eternal, uh, used in terms of the The Ruach and then they assume oh well that means the Holy Spirit is also from, you know, from before, uh, creation. Right? It actually, no, no it doesn't mean that and it doesn't say that. 

Restoring Creation: Part 10: Did Creation Begin In Gen. 1:2? Powerful Revelation!

9:56 So, what elements of creation are present in Genesis? Well, Elohim of course, the Father and the Son really. 

10:51 And the Holy Spirit was present and you will notice He is always on the surface of the earth throughout Scripture. Notice that. A lot of times they say oh well the Holy Spirit in Heaven. Woah, woah, wait, wait. The Holy Spirit's not in heaven. That's not Bible. The Holy Spirit generally is on earth. Now we got no role for him at creation, uh, no Scripture calling Him Elohim, it's just not there. Uh, but we'll get there soon too. We are gonna address one, uh, that could be used to try to bolster such although we actually haven't seen anybody figure that out but we figured it out and already we'll show you how that would not be an accurate reading.   

Restoring Creation: Part 12: Who Is Elohim? Gen. 1:1 Understood. First Day.

1:39 Well, who then are the Elohim of Genesis 1:1 before the angels were even created? Yes they are called Elohim as well because Elohim is a general term for  heavenly being. However, there are no other heavenly beings there is two here actually. There's another being on earth, uh, and there you go, that's it, at creation in the very beginning.  

18:59 But who is Elohim? Well, the word is plural at least two in the Hebrew, the "im" on the end makes it plural. Plural means not one but two. 

37:37 So, in the beginning Elohim created the heavens and the earth. That Elohim is two. The Father and the Son. Again, the Holy Spirit's there but there's no Scripture that ever attributes the Holy Spirit as a creator. It's just not there. You can try to add it. You can try to say, you know, it's equated in some context somewhere. That's fine go ahead and do that but we don't. We just don't placate those kinds of thinkings. We, we go with what the Bible says. So, that's not His role it just isn't in scripture. If it was His role then show us the Scripture. Well you won't because it's not there.  

39:05 But here basically the word Elohim is a generic term for heavenly being. But again, the only beings in heaven at the tome of Genesis 1:1 are the Father and the Son. The Holy Spirit is hovering on the waters. He's on earth which is where he is throughout Scripture. His role is on earth.  

51:53 So, Yahusha, the Son, is part of Elohim which is plural for two at creation, the Father and the Son. That is the only who qualify as creators. In the beginning Elohim created, right? Again we'll cover this more but the Holy Spirit is not known as Elohim nor a Creator. It's just not there. He is incredibly important and physically present at creation indeed not in heaven but on Earth where he is found throughout scripture in the Old and New Testaments alike but still that doesn't make him what the Bible never calls Him. He is not the Elohim of Creation in the sense of creating. He just doesn't do that that the text says at all. In the beginning Elohim created does not include Him as such though He is present indeed. We aren't going to force something this important because of, well, illiterate ridicule using an anti-trinitarian label or whatever. Who cares? Which also is a word that, well, never exists in scripture. Oh how about that? Talk about the dumbest of false paradigms. Such inept fools don't even realize the words they use aren't even in the Bible yet they beat people over the head for not using their unbiblical words and doctrines for that matter. Now that's pretty dumb. Wow.

Restoring Creation: Part 13: Where Did the Water and Deep Come From? Gen. 1:2 Understood in Job 26

6:10 And the Spirit of Elohim moved upon the face of the waters. That's the Holy Spirit no doubt. This is definitely Him, His first mention, He was there. He just wasn't a creator according to Scripture. It doesn't attribute that role which is ok, He doesn't have to be. Not sure why they claim that He does. That's ridiculous.  

13:08 There's no mention in Jubilees of the Holy Spirit specifically. Uh, Moses doesn't separate him out there, uh, and that may be telling, uh, but we're, we're not sure on that though we'll keep researching. Uh, he mentions all the spirits that serve before Him, uh, which are indisputably angels. Uh, whether the Holy Spirit is included in that we don't know. Uh, that's a topic for another series requiring a lot of research we're not going to touch yet but we will eventually. We'd like to get to that, anyway. We know He was there though and that the Angels weren't yet, uh, at that point on Genesis 1:2. Uh, so if if He was created per se He would have been created before, uh, the Angels not at the same time and certainly not lumped in with them. So, not sure that, that that's the case and He very well may be. Uh, yes he's the Eternal Holy Spirit but Eternal, uh, the angels are Eternal, man is eternal so that doesn't mean that He existed prior to being created if he was a creation like other Spirits. There's just no mention of Him as existing prior and the word Eternal does not denote no beginning, again. So, there's no scripture that really says, okay, and that may actually tell us much.

Restoring Creation: Part 14: Who Is The Light of Creation? Light and Darkness.

14:47 Basically this is a creation miracle from the Light of the World who created all things He and the Father together demonstrating such now. 

18:45 I mean how can we read all these things that Yahusha was in the beginning and created and all things were created by Him as well as the Father, uh, nothing was created without Him, and not realize that He's injected into all of this? Of course He is. Has to be because Elohim is the Father and the Son. 

20:01 For the glory of Elohim did lighten it. Wow! Ok so you have the Father or the Father and Son, Elohim's plural, right, and that would be the proper Hebrew there even though this is written in Greek. And the Lamb, who is the Lamb? We all know that's Yahusha. And the Lamb is the light thereof. Specifically out of Elohim, the Father and the Son, the light comes from Yahusha.

24:17 Yahuah says, Elohim, really the Father and the Son. 

29:48 An era the Bible, by the way, never mentions before creation we've made that clear, uh, except for Yahuah and Yahusha existed, uh, and we're not given a narrative prior to these first six days of creation because we don't need one.  

Restoring Creation: Part 17: What Is The Firmament? Second Day

13:09 Genesis 1:6 and Elohim the Father and the Son together

23:49 On the first day Yahuah and Yahusha, Elohim, created seven great works.

Restoring Creation: Part 19: The Flood: Eyewitnesses of the Firmament Second Day

2:54 There is no such thing as concept of before creation other than the fact that Yahuah and Yahusha existed prior. That's it. That's all we find in Scripture. Not even the Holy Spirit for that matter. We don't find that. Doesn't mean that He wasn't we just don't know because it doesn't say. 

17:49 It's amazing what Yahuah and Yahusha did in the first days of time. 

Restoring Creation: Part 28: Sun, Moon, & Stars. Fourth Day

51:15 The heavens declare the glory of Elohim. Indeed they are the creators and they created the heavens therefore that's how that works. The Father and the Son and yes the Holy Spirit was there present hovering over the face of the great deep, over the earth basically. Uh, we just aren't given a role for Him in creation itself. Doesn't say that He was a creator. Just doesn't.

For the moment Timothy Jay Schwab has paused his creation series so this list is incomplete. But it is more than enough to convict The God Culture of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. He may not think he is blaspheming the Holy Ghost but what else do you call denying God's Spirit divinity, eternity, and being a creator? The Bible tells us that we are sealed by the Holy Spirit unto the day of redemption. 

Are we sealed with a creature? The idea is preposterous. 

Paul says we are to pray at all times in the Spirit. 

Jude says we are to pray in the Holy Ghost!

Are we to pray to a creature? Of course not!

All the functions of the Holy Spirit as laid out in the Scriptures are that of God and not a creature. To deny His divinity and suggest He is a creation is to commit blasphemy. Timothy Jay Schwab of the God Culture is a blasphemer. 

The God Culture: 100 Lies About the Philippines: Lie #27: Aparri is A Hebrew Word

Welcome back to 100 Lies The God Culture teaches about the Philippines. Today's lie concerns the town of Aparri in Cagayan Province. Timothy Jay Schwab claims it is an ancient Hebrew word. As we shall see that is a lie. 

In his video Tim says:

Ancient Entrance to Ophir / Aupir, Philippines. Solomon's Gold Series 6K

13:26 Yet another version says that the town's name comes from the locals, the Ibanag word Aparrian. Oh, that makes sense that looks like the same word and wait they live there. Hmm. That makes much better sense and it actually in meaning a place where there are many priests. Oh, you mean the the local tribe actually named their own land long before the Spanish? Duh. Who would think otherwise, really?  

Tim is getting his information about the etymology of Aparri solely from Wikipedia which states:

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

The origin of the name Aparri has been disputed. One version says that the town was named by Spanish conquistador Juan Pablo Carreron, who upon landing there in 1581, named the town after the colloquial word for supper in his hometown. Another version claims that the name comes from the Spanish word aparte, or "separate", referring to the town's separation from Camalaniugan and Buguey in 1680. Yet another version says that the town's name comes from the Ibanag word apparian, a place where there are many priests.

That information is as good as it goes but there is more to the story. The reference at the end of the paragraph is to a book titled "Cagayan Province and Her People" by Ed de Rivera Castillet.

As far as I can tell this book is not available online in full. However Google does allow one to search little snippets of the text. The following is what Castillet writes about the origin of the name Aparri. 

Cagayan Province and Her People

Cagayan Province and Her People

That is essentially the content of the Wikipedia article. But there is more to this story. Why were there priests in the area? Because a church was erected in 1604 and priests moved to the area to evangelize the natives. Aparri was officially made a town in 1680. 

It is believed that Aparri got its name when the civil and religious authorities in Nueva Segovia (now Lallo) decided in 1604 to erect a church there for the evangelization of the natives. The many priests who celebrated the first mass there remained to supervise the construction of the church and continued their evangelization work; subsequently, the natives referred to their place as “Aparrian,” an Ybanag word meaning “where priests resided.” On May 11, 1680, Aparri was officially inaugurated and was granted ecclesiastical recognition having for patron saint, Peter Thelmo.              

https://asat-edu.com/index.php/2021/05/07/aparri-my-hometown/

This is contrary to Tim's false assertion that Aparri was named as such long before the Spanish arrived. It also once again showcases his poor research as he has relied only on a Wikipedia article rather than search for original sources and get to the bottom of the matter. 

As for his Hebrew etymology of Aparri it makes no sense. According to him the word breaks down into "Apar" meaning dust of the earth and "ri" meaning moisture or watering. 

19:54 That's all appropriate to the land of Creation in the Garden of Eden indeed. The land where Adam was formed from "apar," dust, and "ri" the first watering. Wow!

What sense does "dust watering" make? Why would a town in Cagayan be named for the watering of the Garden of Eden when Tim teaches that the Garden of Eden is buried beneath the floor of the Sulu Sea? That is no where near Cagayan and does not make sense within his own false teachings. 

The fact is Aparri is not a Hebrew word. It is an Ibanag word. The Hebrew etymology is a total figment of Tim's imagination. It is simply another lie about the Philippines being taught by Timothy Jay Schwab of The God Culture.

The God Culture: 100 Lies About The Philippines: Lie #26: The Butuan Ivory Seal Has Hebrew Writing

Welcome back to 100 Lies The God Culture teaches about the Philippines. Today's lie concerns the Butuan Ivory Seal. This artifact was found in 1970 and dates back to 1,000 AD. Tim says the scholarly interpretation of the seal is wrong and that the writing on it is actually Hebrew. More than that he claims the seal is concrete evidence the Lost Tribes of Israel arrived in the Philippines. 

Tim concludes his interpretation of the Butuan Ivory Seal saying:

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

19:24 These letters are about as clear as it gets. They are Hebrew. So, what does all of this mean? Again, read right to left: "The Rechabites who live in tents in the land of creation as the Zadok priests where the scattered tribes are yoked at the ends of the earth." Wow dude! This is awesome and concrete evidence, we believe, that the Lost Tribes arrived in the Philippines.

Despite Tim's conviction that the Butuan Ivory Seal has Hebrew writing and is concrete evidence the Lost Tribes of Israel arrived in the Philippines he does not mention this tidbit in his book The Search for King Solomon's Treasure. There is only a single picture of the seal on page 157.

The Search for King Solomon's Treasure, pg. 157

It is important to note that in this video Tim admits he is not a linguist. 

5:06 We are not linguists nor do we care to be but you will find no linguist is necessary in this case because come along with us and we'll interpret this together.

For someone who uses linguistics to prove that there are Hebrew place names in the Philippines Tim is quite proud and satisfied to not actually be a linguist. In effect Tim is admitting he has no idea what he is talking about. Why would there be Hebrew carved into an ivory seal in the Philippines dating back to 1,000 AD? For Tim it's because he believes that members of the Lost Tribes of Israel made their way to the Philippines. That is the fact he starts with and then he interprets everything in light of that false paradigm.

The fact is this seal has already been examined and interpreted by actual linguists. Tim rejects their interpretations full stop. 

0:35 Are we crazy? Can we actually claim to have deciphered the writing on the Butan Ivory Seal as we do in the intro? Well, we do indeed with all confidence because all of these years we believe the professors and scholars have been using the wrong language. They don't know any better. It's okay but you and I do.

According to the National Museum of the Philippines Dutch linguist Antoon Postma the script on the seal is stylised Kawi and translates as But-ban which is the same as Butuan.   

This week we are featuring the Butuan Ivory Seal, which is dated A.D. 10th-13th c. (Age of Contact and Trade), measuring 6 cm long and 4 cm diameter.

The Butuan Ivory Seal was recovered by pothunters in a prehistoric shell midden site in Ambangan, Libertad, Butuan City in the 1970s. It was eventually donated to the National Museum.  

According to Dr. Antoon Postma, the inscription is an ancient Javanese or stylized Kawi script referring to “But-ban”. A Dutch Scholar in ancient Indonesian scripts, Johannes Gijsbertus de Casparis, decoded it as “But-wan”. These words refer to Butuan, the present name of the site where it was found.

The ivory seal as well as other archaeological materials recovered in Ambangan archaeological sites are proof that Butuan was an important trading center whose official seal marked the source of commodities it produced and exported. 

https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=1247343325289983&set=the-nm-continues-the-celebration-of-buwan-ng-wika-through-its-collectionthis-wee

It is a rather straightforward interpretation. But Tim rejects it by asking the following question.

20:10 Notice the letter sounds are BT. Could be Butuan, maybe. Perhaps. But why would it need to say Butuan anyway? That's a rush to judgment scholars are trying to stretch out of it unsuccessfully. None of them have proven that it says that for reason.

Well, why does the seal have to say "The Rechabites who live in tents in the land of creation as the Zadok priests where the scattered tribes are yoked at the ends of the earth?" What practical use is having that on the seal? The museum tells us the seal says Butuan because "Butuan was an important trading center whose official seal marked the source of the commodities it produced and exported." 

Aside from translating the Butuan Ivory Seal Antoon Postma also deciphered the Laguna Copperplate Inscription. 

https://www.jstor.org/stable/42633308

It is interesting that Tim rejects Postma's interpretation of the Butuan Ivory Seal but accepts his interpretation of the Laguna Copperplate.   He even includes it in his book. 

The Search for King Solomon's Gold, pg. 156

The Laguna Copperplate Inscription, one of the oldest historical records in the history of the Philippines, demonstrates early connections between the early inhabitants of Luzon and Java in Indonesia by the 10th century as well as proving a literate people executing an extensive legal agreement inscribed on a sheet of copper, an abundant native resource. Natives in loin clothes do not draft such significant legal agreements on copper. 

And in what language is the Laguna Copperplate Inscription? Kawi!

https://www.jstor.org/stable/42633308

The very same script on the Butuan Ivory Seal. 

 5:20 We've read a book a while ago and have picked it back up again recently from one of our viewers it's called Philippines, I Thee Wed which is a beautiful way to describe the relationship between the Lost Tribes and the ekklesia the bride of Messiah as scripture references many times over and we have found a former name in fact of the Philippines this is gonna blow you away that is actually Hebrew as well and we will share this soon not in this video but one of the upcoming ones and you're gonna love it because it ties to all of this as well the book makes outrageous claims that Philippines might actually be Ophir maybe even the Garden of Eden and the location of the Lost Tribes hmm can you imagine that?

This book does not give an interpretation of the writing on the seal. That stems wholly from Tim's imagination. But the idea that the seal has any Hebrew is something Tim lifted directly from this book. 

Philippines, I Thee Wed, pg. 60

It is simply not true that the Butuan Ivory Seal has Hebrew writing on it. It is in Kawi the same as the Laguna Copperplate inscription. Both have been translated by Antoon Postma who, unlike Tim, was an actual linguist. The fact that Tim is unaware that Antoon Postma deciphered both the Laguna Copperplate Inscription and the Butuan Ivory Seal using the same language is more evidence of his poor research skills.  The claim that the Butuan Ivory Seal has Hebrew writing on it is just one more lie Timothy Jay Schwab teaches about the Philippines. 

The God Culture: 100 Lies About the Philippines: Lie #25: The Spanish Destroyed Philippine Documents

Welcome back to 100 lies the God Culture teaches about the Philippines. Today's lie concerns Tim's claim that the Spanish destroyed all Filipino documents relating to their history. As we shall see this is another lie.

In his videos Tim says the following:

Bathala Origin. Hebrew? Who Was This Ancient Creator God? Solomon's Gold Series - Part 6C Bathala Origin. Hebrew? Who Was This Ancient Creator God? Solomon's Gold Series - Part 6C

3:34 We have shared other references in other parts of this series regarding the Spanish friars bragging about all but eradicating the previous history of the Philippines prior to their arrival. Here's one from the American Historical Association of all places from Washington DC saying as much. "The written record of the Philippine Islands starts with the coming of the Spaniards. Not that the country had not had a history and a culture and a literature before, exclamation point, but the Spaniards in their religious zeal destroyed the earlier records as completely as possible therefore much of what is known about pre-Spanish days and there is still much to be uncovered."

This same claim is made in Tim's book The Search for King Solomon's Treasure.

The Search for King Solomon's Treasure, pgs 155 - 157

You will notice the history of the Philippines prior to the Spanish seems non-existent in native records. This sparks a debate as to whether Spanish Jesuit friars or the like destroyed the history of the Philippines. Some demand an admission from the Spanish as such which is a false paradigm in expectation. The track is simple to test. When the Spanish arrived, they record a literate people who could read and write. If one can read and write, it means they do so. In areas, Filipinos were a literate people in whole.

Even in the early Spanish occupation, Filipinos are known to be a literate people both reading and writing with their own language.

Notice the significant distinction of the Filipino people in contrast with other Oriental nations. This is affirmed in the Boxer Codex and many times in history. This was a set-apart people who was depicted as wealthier and more literate as one would expect of ancient Ophir. We do not find similar history anywhere else on earth. In applying reason, in the early Spanish days before conquest was even fully recognized, Chirino saw Filipinos writing as well as reading. They wrote something. They read something. Where is it? If insignificant, why destroy it?

That being the case, they wrote something and it is gone and under Spain’s watch, thus the Holy Roman Empire is responsible regardless. They wanted to conquer and control and they also have to accept such responsibility for things which occurred during their reign. One defies logic in assumption that Filipinos would not have written especially the name of their country or area previously for instance and the notion that every writing was pagan is one of the most ridiculous, illogical assumptions one could make. There is no need to produce an admission of guilt by the Spanish to conclude the Spanish destroyed history as they document a literate people and the writings have disappeared during their era of control.

How can anyone peruse these records that the Filipinos wrote things and then, develop a lapse in reason to absolve the Spanish for their erasing history? Filipinos did not wipe out their own history and the Spanish have been caught doing so with the Aztecs and other cultures as an established pattern of behavior. If nothing else, they are guilty of negligence. Even the American Historical Association believes this and remember, the Americans controlled the Philippines after the Spanish.

However, no consensus is required as the documents existed and they are no longer regardless of how they may have disappeared. If hidden by the Filipino people, they would have resurfaced by now. They were taken and likely eradicated.

Everything Tim writes in his book is presumptive bunk. His thesis is that because Filipinos had a script called Baybayin they wrote and preserved their own history. Then the Spanish came along and destroyed all those documents. But this presupposes several things such as Filipinos writing on lasting material like papyrus, paper, or vellum, that these writings were preserved somewhere, and that Filipinos had a sense of history enabling them to write such things down. Tim is very adamant that Filipinos had no architecture. So, if they had no temples or buildings where and how exactly would these writings be preserved from the elements?

Tim has already muddied the waters by saying the Spanish would never admit they destroyed these writings which means Father Pedro Chirino, a man Tim cites, lies when he says the following:

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=miun.afk2830.0001.040&view=1up&seq=73&q1=history

It is not found that these nations had anything written about their religion or about their government, or of their old-time history. All that we have been able to learn has been handed down from father to son in tradition, and is preserved in their customs; and in some songs that they retain in their memory and repeat when they go on the sea, sung to the time of their rowing, and in their merrymakings, feasts, and funerals, and even in their work, when many of them work together. In those songs are recounted the fabulous genealogies and vain deeds of their gods. 

Father Chirino says Filipinos did not have any writings about their religion, government, or history. Does that mean Filipinos did not write? Of course not. Father Chirino continues his testimony by noting they wrote on very perishable surfaces like leaves. 

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=miun.afk2830.0001.012&view=1up&seq=247&q1=writing

They used to write on reeds and palm-leaves, using as a pen an iron point; now they write their own letters, as well as ours, with a sharpened quill, and, as we do, on paper.

According to Tim we have to reject this testimony that before the Spanish arrived Filipinos wrote only on reeds and palm-leaves and that none of that writing contained a word about their history. But if we have to reject that because the Spanish are lying then there is nothing they wrote that we should believe. 

Of course Tim offers no proof that Filipinos wrote history or on paper or vellum and preserved it. Tim offers no eyewitness testimony to the destruction of ancient Filipino documents. In fact, no one can offer such testimony. Not even the American Historical Association. If the Jesuits  did destroy Filipino documents what sense would it make for Father Chirino to preserve and explain the Baybayin writing system? 

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=miun.afk2830.0001.012&view=1up&seq=246&q1=writing

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=miun.afk2830.0001.012&view=1up&seq=246&q1=writing

Of course it does not make any sense and Tim does not discuss the fact that the Jesuits preserved Baybayin.

This idea that the Spanish destroyed ancient Filipino documents was described by H. Otley Beyer who wrote the following:

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.d0001528223&view=1up&seq=311&q1=mexicans

The fanatic zeal of the Spaniards for the Christian faith and corresponding hatred for all other forms of belief led them to regard the native writings and art as works of the Devil—to be destroyed wherever found. In Mexico and Peru many old records were preserved in more or less modified form in the writings of early native Christians and Spanish half-castes, but in the Philippines the destruction was more ruthlessly thorough and only a few fragments have survived. It cannot be said that such writings did not exist, since the early Filipinos were even more literate than the Mexicans; they used syllabaries of Indian origin. One Spanish priest in southern Luzon boasted of having destroyed more than three hundred scrolls written in the native character.

This alleged fact has no source or basis in reality. Beyer offers no reference for the outlandish claim that one Spanish present in Southern Luzon destroyed more than 300 scrolls. How did they have scrolls if, as Father Chirino testified, they wrote on palm leaves and reeds?  According to one scholar Beyer's claims have never been verified.

Many people today, both ordinary Filipinos and some historians not acquainted with the Philippines, are surprised when they learn that the ancient Filipinos actually had a writing system of their own. The complete absence of truly pre-Hispanic specimens of the baybayin script is puzzling and it has lead to a common misconception that fanatical Spanish priests must have burned or otherwise destroyed massive amounts of native documents as they did so ruthlessly in Central America. Even the prominent Dr. H. Otley Beyer wrote in The Philippines before Magellan (1921) that, “one Spanish priest in Southern Luzon boasted of having destroyed more than three hundred scrolls written in the native character.” Historians have searched for the source of Beyer's claim, but until now none have even learned the name of that zealous priest. Furthermore, there has never been a recorded instance of ancient Filipinos writing on scrolls. The fact that they wrote on such perishable materials as leaves and bamboo is probably the reason why no pre-Hispanic documents have survived. 

Although many Spaniards didn't hide their disdain for Filipino culture, the only documents they burned were probably the occasional curse or incantation that offended their beliefs. There simply were no “dangerous” documents to burn because the pre-Hispanic Filipinos did not write at length about such things as their own beliefs, mythology, or history. These were the subjects of their oral record, which, indeed, the Spanish priests tried to eradicate through relentless indoctrination. But, in regard to writing, it can be argued that the Spanish friars actually helped to preserve the baybayin by continuing to use it and write about it even after it fell out of use among most Filipinos. 

http://paulmorrow.ca/bayeng1.htm

The facts are plain. Filipinos did not write history but transmitted their history orally. The Jesuits did not burn books en masse because there were no books to burn. In fact, the Jesuits preserved the Filipino script Baybayin which wouldn't make any sense if they were out to eradicate Filipino literature. Thus the claim that the Spanish burned Filipino documents is simply one more lie about the Philippines taught by Timothy Jay Schwab of The God Culture.

The God Culture: 100 Lies About the Philippines: Lie #24: The Pagan Philippine God Bathala is YHWH

Welcome back to 100 Lies The God Culture teaches about the Philippines. Today's lie concerns Timothy Jay Schwab's statements about the Philippine god Bathala. Tim teaches that the pagan Philippine god Bathala is actually the Hebrew God Yahweh. 

In his videos Tim says the following:

Bathala Origin. Hebrew? Who Was This Ancient Creator God? Solomon's Gold Series - Part 6C

53:20 Ladies and Gentlemen Bathala is more likely Yahuah. In EVERY SENSE the creator God of Genesis. 

This same claim is also in Tim's book The Search for King Solomon's Treasure.

The Search for King Solomon's Treasure, pg. 205

With reservation, we even tackled what is referred to as the “Creator God of the Tagalogs” whom the Jesuits represent as a pagan god yet we question this because this emerges Hebrew. We explore this fully in an entire video thus this will be a brief.

These two words in Hebrew both point to the Creator God from scripture. Ask yourself how this is possible. We are aware of the narrative of Bathala being a pagan god which includes worship of Anitos or demons of sort. However, we cover this in our Bathala video, when the Jesuits ask the Filipinos about Bathala, they tell them they only worship Bathala and not the Anitos and not the bird. Of course, immediately after receiving their answer which one time even includes a warning by the Filipino not to worship anyone else, the Jesuits still continue to write about Anito idols, etc. We believe the ancient Filipino word on this as they are the ones who lived there and we observe this often in the historic record.

Tim's core argument for the Philippine god Bathala being the Hebrew God Yawheh lies in the supposed Hebrew etymology of the word Bathala. But how does he know that the word is Hebrew? He does not. He assumes it throughout the video. His phony Hebrew etymology concludes with the following statement:

https://youtu.be/7pmGkSWsIbo

38:08 Of course some will say, "Nuh-uh" just as they did with Maharlika yet no one has actually proven that that is not Hebrew. Nor will they be able to prove that this is not Hebrew especially not with stretched etymologies that don't even fit no matter how much they stretch and they aren't even the same letters.  This is exact. Wow!

What a profoundly ignorant argument. Tim says that because no one has proven him wrong that means he is right. He has shifted the burden of proof from himself to his audience and expects his detractors to prove a negative! Tim does not have to prove he is right, you have to prove he is wrong. That is the logical fallacy known as the argument from ignorance. 

At no time does Tim ever prove or even attempt to prove that Bathala is a Hebrew compound word and indeed as a compound word it makes no sense. In English Bathala would translate to "Measure Rib." Instead of offering solid etymological proof that Bathala is Hebrew Tim says the word "looks" Hebrew.

2:18 And the word Bathala certainly sounds, well, Hebrew to us. I mean just looking at the word you can almost see right away, yeah that's a fit. Perhaps this is because we find a direct exact Hebrew etymology that makes far more sense than the narrative of academia which makes no connections whatsoever and is frankly a very bad guess from what we find as we do with many etymologies in Philippine history especially those written by Jesuits.

How ludicrous. If Filipinos are Hebrews then why is their God not named YHWH? How did they lose that name and come to invent the name Bathala? Tim does not say. And let's not forget there are other creator Gods among the Filipinos. How about Melu? According to James Frazer:

Folklore in the Old Testament, vol. 1, pg 16

The Bila-an, a wild tribe of Mindanao, one of the Philippine Islands relate the creation of man as follows. They say that in the beginning there was a certain being named Melu of a size so huge that no known thing can give any idea of it ; he was white in colour, and had golden teeth, and he sat upon the clouds, occupying all the space above.

Being of a very cleanly habit, he was constantly rubbing himself in order to preserve the whiteness of his skin unsullied. The scurf which he thus removed from his person he laid on one side, till it gathered in such a heap as to fidget him. To be rid of it he constructed the earth out of it, and being pleased with his work he resolved to make two beings like himself, only much smaller in size. He fashioned them accordingly in his own likeness out of the leavings of the scurf whereof he had moulded the earth, and these two were the first human beings.

Quite clearly there were a variety of gods worshipped in the Philippines and Bathala was simply one among many. 

The proper way to demolish Tim's ridiculous claim is to take a look at the identity of the Creator God of Genesis and compare Him to Bathala. In that way we can discern if Bathala truly is in EVERY SENSE the Creator God of Genesis.  

First of all the name of God in Genesis 1 is Elohim which is plural. The God of Genesis is not a monad but Bathala is. Bathala has no Son or Spirit. However he does have a messenger bird.

15:37 In early Philippine history Bathala was strongly associated with Tigmamanukan - omen bird. Mmm are you sure? Not according to that actual Filipinos but they'll ignore that too. So much so that early chronicler Antonio de Morga thought the Tagalog saw the bird as their ultimate deity. Really? The anonymous author of the boxer codex in 1590 also nearly made this mistake but was advised...by whom? By the Tagalogs by the natives, by the locals not to equate the two because Tigmamanukan, however you say that, was not the Creator God but only his messenger.   ends at 16:40

What is there about Elohim that can compare with a messenger bird? Nothing!

While Tim denies the triune nature of God and the divinity of the Holy Spirit even he admits that Elohim is plural.

Restoring Creation: Part 2: Continued... Did Moses Write the First Chapters of Genesis?

35:40 Elohim, uh, is the Father and the Son. It's plural and it's used because the Father and the Son created.

Who is the Son of Bathala and where is he? Where is the strict one-to-one identification between Elohim and Bathala? It's not there. It only exists in Tim's mind. 

Second of all The New Testament is very clear that all things were created by Jesus Christ. 

https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/col/1/1/s_1108001

Colossians 1:13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:

14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:

15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

To claim that Bathala is in EVERY SENSE the creator God of Genesis is to identify him with Jesus Christ. Is Bathala Jesus Christ? Of course not! Why would anyone even contemplate such blasphemy as to equate a Philippine deity with Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ? It is an outrageous and blasphemous claim. 

This stupid and ridiculous claim can be traced to the fact that Tim denies the divinity of the Holy Spirit and the triunity of God. 

Only one who denies the Trinity could dare strictly identify the Philippines' pagan deity who has a messenger bird (Odin is also a God with a messenger bird!) as Yahuah and declare that he is in EVERY SENSE the creator God of Genesis. Tim is not so ignorant as to be unaware that Jesus Christ created all things and is thus the Creator God of Genesis. Why would he identify Jesus Christ as Bathala? How much more blasphemous could Tim be? Does he pray to Bathala?

This should be enough to drive the point home that Bathala is not YHWH. He is not the creator God of Genesis in EVERY SENSE as Tim claims. If that were the case he would not be a monad but a triad. He would have a Son and a Spirit. Instead he has a messenger bird. The identification of Bathala with YHWH is simply one more lie Timothy Jay Schwab  teaches about the Philippines.