The God Culture: Follow the Method

Timothy Jay Schwab of The God Culture has a new 52-week study series about the apocrypha. It is based on his two-volume set of books which claims to test the apocryphal books. I have written an article on each volume showing forth Tim's awful and uneducated methods defending or rejecting the apocrypha (vol 1, vol 2). It is this method which I would like to further explore. 

Apocrypha Test: Part 2: Who Decided Bible Canon? History of the Bible.

In a comment on this video Tim says one should follow his method to find out the truth. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEHB3rowk8I&lc=UgzStsCHOWRh56weQzV4AaABAg

@jawnatutorow: Ok, I have a question. If the pharisees at Jesus time were imposters, why did Paul respect them when they told him Ananias was the high priest, and Paul apologized and said it is written you should not speak even of a ruler of your people?

@TheGodCulture: You mean Paul when on trial with his life in the hands of the Pharisees? Can you read? Are you really incapable of the comprehension of a child? When you try to quote a scripture, quote it and do so in context. First, Paul rebukes the Pharisees many times and the illiterate modern church thinks he is rebuking Moses when he taught Moses' Law but rebuked Pharisee application. Why do you think he ended up in front of them on trial? How do you not know? In this account you try to cite inaccurately in context, Paul invokes he was a Pharisee by birth thru his father likely, yet he was a Hebrew thru his mother which are 2 different things if you new how to read Paul. If he did not show respect to the Pharisee ruler publicly especially when in chains and on trial in front of them, which is rather sad to think you do not know any of Paul's story it appears, he would be dead far earlier. Paul was not stupid. How is it you do not know that is the actual question here? Some of them still wish to kill Paul even so but understand he publicly covered himself by showing respect for what was a recognized position though Paul well knew the Pharisees were fakes. He warns of their Jewish Fables and endless genealogies in 1 Timothy 4. Read all of that chapter and he lays out the Pharisees guilty of old wives' fables as well. In 2 Timothy 4, he predicts many will fall for these Jewish fables of the Pharisees. In Titus 1:14, Paul says: " Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth." The real question here is how is that you think that his rebuking the Pharisees accusing them of propagating the commandments of men and lies turning men away from the truth somehow equals his endorsing their righteousness when he never did. Yes, when on trial, he invokes his Roman citizenship by birth, his Pharisee bloodline from his father, his Hebrew blood from his mother, and his learning from a very famous Pharisee at a young age in his defense while on trial. His defense was accurate and it worked that time especially. However, you see that as his endorsing those he rebuked? Really? This is an extremely illiterate way to read anything. Follow the method on this channel and you will learn to fix this. Attempt further debate in ignorance as you certainly do not know Paul and do not represent his words, be muted. Our channel, our rules. Yah Bless.

I want to analyze this comment and response and show that the method used by Timothy Jay Schwab is only going to lead one into ignorance. 

@jawnatutorow: Ok, I have a question. If the pharisees at Jesus time were imposters, why did Paul respect them when they told him Ananias was the high priest, and Paul apologized and said it is written you should not speak even of a ruler of your people?

Now, this person echos the very same question I have said about Tim's assertion that the Pharisees were impostors. Nowhere in the scripture does Jesus, or in this case Paul, ever condemn them for being impostors. They are condemned for hypocrisy but never for being Samaritan impostors. It's a deadly blow to Tim's claims. 

But watch how he uses his method to make the question irrelvant. I am going to take this a section at a time. Someone should tell Tim to punch the enter button once in a while and start a new paragraph. There is no need for unreadable blocks of text. 

@TheGodCulture: You mean Paul when on trial with his life in the hands of the Pharisees? Can you read? Are you really incapable of the comprehension of a child? When you try to quote a scripture, quote it and do so in context.

The very first part of Tim's method is to mock and ridicule the commenter. This is the same method he uses when discussing the work of Dead Sea Scrolls scholars. They are dismissed as illiterate buffoons. 

First, Paul rebukes the Pharisees many times and the illiterate modern church thinks he is rebuking Moses when he taught Moses' Law but rebuked Pharisee application. Why do you think he ended up in front of them on trial? How do you not know?

The second part of Tim's method is to twist facts and erect straw men. It is true that Paul rebukes the Pharisees but it is NOT true that the Church thinks or teaches Paul rebuked Moses. That is simply nonsense. Paul says very clearly he upholds the law but at the same time he is very adamant that the law leads us to Christ and because Christ is come it is now done away with. That is why the Church does not teach the law of Moses except insofar as it leads men to Christ. We are no longer under the law but under grace. That dichotomy of law versus grace, of the old versus the new covenant, is Christianity 101. 

In fact, Paul did not end up on trial for rebuking the Pharisees but because the Jews thought he brought a Gentile into the temple and that he was teaching against the law. 

Acts 21:27 And when the seven days were almost ended, the Jews which were of Asia, when they saw him in the temple, stirred up all the people, and laid hands on him,

28 Crying out, Men of Israel, help: This is the man, that teacheth all men every where against the people, and the law, and this place: and further brought Greeks also into the temple, and hath polluted this holy place.

29 (For they had seen before with him in the city Trophimus an Ephesian, whom they supposed that Paul had brought into the temple.)

 

Acts 22:21 And he said unto me, Depart: for I will send thee far hence unto the Gentiles.

22 And they gave him audience unto this word, and then lifted up their voices, and said, Away with such a fellow from the earth: for it is not fit that he should live.

Acts 24:5 For we have found this man a pestilent fellow, and a mover of sedition among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes:

6 Who also hath gone about to profane the temple: whom we took, and would have judged according to our law.

7 But the chief captain Lysias came upon us, and with great violence took him away out of our hands,

8 Commanding his accusers to come unto thee: by examining of whom thyself mayest take knowledge of all these things, whereof we accuse him.

9 And the Jews also assented, saying that these things were so.

 

Acts 25:7 And when he was come, the Jews which came down from Jerusalem stood round about, and laid many and grievous complaints against Paul, which they could not prove.

8 While he answered for himself, Neither against the law of the Jews, neither against the temple, nor yet against Caesar, have I offended any thing at all.

See that? The charges have NOTHING to do with Paul rebuking the Pharisees. In fact the Pharisees were ready to let Paul go when he spoke of the resurrection!

Acts 23:9 And there arose a great cry: and the scribes that were of the Pharisees' part arose, and strove, saying, We find no evil in this man: but if a spirit or an angel hath spoken to him, let us not fight against God.

Tim calls this commenter illiterate but one must really wonder about his reading skills. 

In this account you try to cite inaccurately in context, Paul invokes he was a Pharisee by birth thru his father likely, yet he was a Hebrew thru his mother which are 2 different things if you new how to read Paul.

The third part of Tim's method is to apply to the enemies of Christ twisted and ridiculous bloodlines. In his view everyone who is not with Christ is a nephilim of some variety. Here we see Tim referring to the Pharisees as some sort of bloodline different from that of the Hebrews. The fact is the Pharisees were a SECT of Judaism which has nothing to do with genetics. There are NO genetic Pharisees just like there are no genetic Catholics, Buddhists, or Muslims. 

If he did not show respect to the Pharisee ruler publicly especially when in chains and on trial in front of them, which is rather sad to think you do not know any of Paul's story it appears, he would be dead far earlier. Paul was not stupid. How is it you do not know that is the actual question here?

The fourth part of Tim's method is to take a familiar Bible story and twist it all out of proportion. In his hands Jonah is no longer swallowed by a fish as the text actually says but he was swallowed by Leviathan and taken all the way around Africa. In this story Paul knew these Pharisees were fakes but deferred to them as being legitimate in a cowardly bid to save his life. Just look at how Tim defames Paul by calling him a dissimulating liar who was looking out to save his life rather than die for the truth as he proclaims he is ready to do in his letters. Incredible. 

Some of them still wish to kill Paul even so but understand he publicly covered himself by showing respect for what was a recognized position though Paul well knew the Pharisees were fakes. He warns of their Jewish Fables and endless genealogies in 1 Timothy 4. Read all of that chapter and he lays out the Pharisees guilty of old wives' fables as well. In 2 Timothy 4, he predicts many will fall for these Jewish fables of the Pharisees. In Titus 1:14, Paul says: " Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth."

This is more of Tim's fourth method. Now 1 Timothy becomes a warning against the Pharisees. In fact, according to Tim most of what Paul writes is against the Pharisees because they were the main number one enemy then and now. Case in point Tim says that Paul only knew the false Pharisee way of keeping the law and he had to relearn how to keep it the correct way. 

https://youtu.be/9Id0VB5fM5M?t=1821

30:22 However Paul kept the Pharisee law in his teachings back then but Pharisee teachings. Ok? Those do not attribute to him keeping the actual law because the Pharisee law is not the law. Therefore having been a Pharisee it did not mean Paul understood the law or the Bible any better than anyone else. He would have to relearn, really unlearn first, and then relearn the entire law because they had leavened pretty much all of it and turned it against, so Paul was learning really a new law when you think about it.

It is simply false that Paul had to relearn the correct way to keep the law. As a Pharisee of the Pharisees he kept it quite correctly and he taught, especially in Galatians and Hebrews, that the law had passed away because it's fulfillment in Jesus Christ had come. 

The real question here is how is that you think that his rebuking the Pharisees accusing them of propagating the commandments of men and lies turning men away from the truth somehow equals his endorsing their righteousness when he never did. Yes, when on trial, he invokes his Roman citizenship by birth, his Pharisee bloodline from his father, his Hebrew blood from his mother, and his learning from a very famous Pharisee at a young age in his defense while on trial. His defense was accurate and it worked that time especially. However, you see that as his endorsing those he rebuked? Really? This is an extremely illiterate way to read anything. 

Here we several of Tim's methods come to the fore. There's the nonsense about Pharisee bloodlines, there's calling the commenter illiterate, and we also have Tim misrepresenting the original question. 

The commenter did not say Paul endorsed the righteousness of the Pharisees. That is NOT the question. What the commenter asked is: 

If the pharisees at Jesus time were imposters, why did Paul respect them when they told him Ananias was the high priest, and Paul apologized and said it is written you should not speak even of a ruler of your people?

There is not a single word about endorsing their righteousness. What is being endorsed is their position as leaders and teachers of Israel and especially the High Priest being legitimate. 

Here is what Paul says in Acts 23: 

1 And Paul, earnestly beholding the council, said, Men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day.

2 And the high priest Ananias commanded them that stood by him to smite him on the mouth.

3 Then said Paul unto him, God shall smite thee, thou whited wall: for sittest thou to judge me after the law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law?

4 And they that stood by said, Revilest thou God's high priest?

5 Then said Paul, I wist not, brethren, that he was the high priest: for it is written, Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people.

6 But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question.

Jesus says much the same thing.

Matthew 23:1 Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,

2 Saying The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:

3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.

Jesus rebukes the Pharisees but he NEVER calls them impostors. He says they "sit in Moses' seat" and are thus the legitimate rulers and judges of Israel. That is the issue here and Tim simply does not want to deal with it honestly. 

Follow the method on this channel and you will learn to fix this. Attempt further debate in ignorance as you certainly do not know Paul and do not represent his words, be muted. Our channel, our rules. Yah Bless.

Finally Tim concludes his non-answer to the question as to why Paul did not call the Pharisees impostors. He says following his method will lead to right conclusions and then he warns the commenter to not comment again "in ignorance" or he will be muted. And what is Tim's method? It is:

1. Insult the inquirer.

2. Misrepresent the question.

3. Twist the scriptures.

4. Reduce everything to bloodlines.

5. Warn any inquirer to never ask a hard question again or else be muted.

That is no method to get to the truth. It is a method to conceal the ignorance of Tim who cannot be bothered by hard facts which prove his teachings to be false. This method is used in all his videos, books, and comments. If you are interested in truth don't follow this method and certainly do not follow Timothy Jay Schwab of The God Culture. 

The God Culture: Apocrypha Scrolls Found In Qumran And Those Not Present, Vol. 2

Timothy Jay Schwab, also known as The God Culture, has finally released volume 2 of his testing of the Apocrypha. You can read my review of volume one at this link.

Apocrypha Scrolls Found In Qumran And Those Not Present, Vol. 2

As I noted in my review of volume one there has been so much ink spilled about these books that Tim's contributions are absolutely not needed and they are in no way helpful. I am not interested in rebutting or affirming the canonicity of these texts but in showcasing Tim's awful methodology. 

The fact is the Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox consider the Apocryphal books to be canonical scripture. For some reason Tim is under the impression that the exclusion of these books from Protestant Bibles is a conspiracy to hide the truth. That is simply not the case as prior to the 19th century all Protestant Bibles contained these books. The reason they were removed was purely a cost saving measure by Bible translation societies. 

In 1826, the National Bible Society of Scotland petitioned the British and Foreign Bible Society not to print the Apocrypha, resulting in a decision that no BFBS funds were to pay for printing any Apocryphal books anywhere. They reasoned that by not printing the secondary material of Apocrypha within the Bible, the scriptures would prove to be less costly to produce. The precise form of the resolution was:

That the funds of the Society be applied to the printing and circulation of the Canonical Books of Scripture, to the exclusion of those Books and parts of Books usually termed Apocryphal.

Similarly, in 1827, the American Bible Society determined that no bibles issued from their depository should contain the Apocrypha.

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

This removal then became the standard for all Protestant Bibles. Yet Tim writes:

Though Wisdom of Solomon direct fragments are not found in Qumran, it is clear the community read and used it as inspired. When our modern Canon is not following this firmly established precedent, one must wonder what the agenda of modern scholars may be. 

pg. 37

Is this guy so stupid as to not realize that scholars do not, have not, and never will determine the Biblical Canon? Is he also so stupid as to not realize anyone can buy a Bible with these books in it? Take note that Tim admits no fragments of the Wisdom of Solomon were found in Qumran. Of course he cites a few scholars to help him prove otherwise which is rather hypocritical of him. 

Now, keep in mind that Tim's guiding principle as to what is and is not scripture is "Was it found at Qumran?" The Wisdom of Solomon was not found at Qumran but that does not stop Tim from rejecting it because a few passages from the Dead Sea Scrolls appear to cite it. Tim then proceeds to prove Wisdom was quoted in the New Testament and says something rather interesting:

This is extremely compelling that the Wisdom of Solomon was quoted in the New Testament and most importantly, whether attributed to that book or not, the doctrine is there. 

pg. 41

So, something can be in the Bible without being directly spelled out? Did Tim forget that he denies the Trinity because the word is not the Bible? The concept certainly is though. 

The History of Susana was also not found at Qumran but again that is not stopping Tim from declaring it was because of a tiny fragment that appears to have "a few points of contact."

In our view, a "few points of contact" to Susanna's one chapter in fragments this small is solid in being able to affirm it found there. Fragments are all we have of most of the scripture found there and they had no problem trying to stretch the Proto-Esther Fragments belonging to 1st Esdras over to Esther in fraud.

pg. 52

In "vetting" Susana Tim claims one scholar, J.T. Milik, actually thought the book was found at Qumran but changed his mind due to "pressure."

Initially. J.T. Milik suggested this fragment as belonging to the story of Susanna. He changed his view in the end but likely due to pressure. 

pg. 53

In fact many scholars are covering-up the truth due to "pressure."

Basically, the math is simple. Out of 10 criteria, Susanna passes on 8 of 10 with an 80 percent score. The two criteria in which it doesn't agree, also do not correspond to Judges. However, Judges 19 fails miserably with a 50 percent score fitting 5 of 10 criteria. What kind of scholar cannot conduct such a simple test to decide? The kind that does not wish to perhaps due to pressure. This is gross negligence. This Qumran fragment squares to Susanna in content as Susanna was found there. 

pg. 58

Of course Tim does not tell us who is pressuring these scholars or why they are doing it. It's simply ad hoc nonsense because Tim thinks he is right and everyone is wrong. 

Both Bel and the Dragon and The Prayer of Azaryah were also not found in Qumran.

In light of the ancient association of Daniel and its addendum of Susanna, which was found in Qumran, it is more than reasonable to connect both Bel & The Dragon as well as Prayer of Azaryah as all three small books were once considered part of, and attached to, the Book of Daniel. 

Though no direct Qumran fragments exist for this one chapter, the association is firm as demonstrated by the Greek Septuagint (LXX)from the B.C. era, Theodotion's Greek Version 1811, and the Egyptian find of Papyrus 967 especially (McLay [108]). Bel & The Dragon was also found in manuscript form in Cod. Ambmsianus (MS) [oaf. Cyprian (257) quoted Danie114:5 which is Bel & The Dragon published as the Book of Daniel [84]1811. Origen  defended it as canon. Pope Damasus I (305384) included Daniel as “one book" incorporating Susanna, Bel & The Dragon, and Prayer of Azaryah. The tradition is well established. It does not matter that there may be some publishing from the ancient era which separated these books. What matters is that they were together in some form published within Daniel. 

pg. 63 

Just as with Bel & The Dragon, even without fragments in Qumran, we find the association strong enough that Daniel did include these addendums as his practice. When one reviews this powerful prayer, it certainly rings true in content as well. There is nothing to be afraid in perusing this small book. At the end of the full publishing of this book, we will vet the plausibility of the details. 

pg. 68

Tim's proof that these texts were used at Qumran is because anciently they were all part of the Book of Daniel. 

Sorry not sorry but that is not enough. Let me restate Tim's criterion for Biblical Canonicity once more:

The first and sole true judge of historicity is whether or not a text was found affirmed in the Dead Sea Scrolls where the Temple Priests were who kept the only official Bible Canon to the First Century. 

Apocrypha Scrolls Found In Qumran And Those Not Present, Vol. 1, pg. 68

Also known as the "Book of Wisdom" or simply as "Wisdom" in some translations and quotes, direct fragments of the Wisdom of Solomon were not found present in Qumran. However, it was used by the author °floral community documents such as 4QInstruction. It appears this book was included in the original Greek Septuagint which dates in origin to the 300-200 B.C. era. Unfortunately, many scoffers would claim we do not know if Wisdom of Solomon was originally there even though it carried through tradition for thousands of years. However, with the connection to Qumran, there is no debate on that point. It was certainly perceived and used as inspired scripture in that time and more importantly than Egyptian translators or the Pharisees such as Josephus, by the actual Qumran/Bethabara exiled Temple Priests. They are the final word on the Old Testament Canon from the time of Moses and really Jacob to the First Century. 

Apocrypha Scrolls Found In Qumran And Those Not Present, Vol. 2, pg. 31

Old Testament Canon from the time of Jacob? But there is no scripture until the time of Moses. This undoubtedly means that Tim believes the Testaments of the 12 Patriarchs are scripture.

https://youtu.be/sWflamM2Bu4?si=OBx-g5VsylRPBw0f

These three additions to Daniel as well as the Book of Wisdom were not found amongst the Dead Sea Scrolls in Qumran. Therefore, according to Tim's criteria, they are not part of the Old Testament canon. End of story. 

Needless to say there is a lot of nonsense in this book. In an attempt to defend the historicity of Bel and the Dragon Timothy Jay Schwab has an entire section devoted to proving dragons existed.

pg. 193

Were dragons real? Who cares! That's NOT what Bel and the Dragon is about! Did he even bother to read this book? And it goes on for 10 pages!

pg. 197

The Incredible Hulk shows up on page 173 as Tim attempts to prove that the demon Asmodeus from the Book of Tobit was actually a demon possessed Nephilim giant. 

pg. 173

Actually this image is titled "3D Illustration Giant Monster" and you can buy it for $9.98 at Shutterstock. But if you search this image on Google you get the Incredible Hulk because it's clearly a rip-off.

Probably the most important section in this book is Tim's attempted dismissal of Maccabees as falsified history. This section is 40 pages long and is a very convoluted interpretation of history that barely cites from Maccabees except in derision. Let's take a look at a few things he says.

By 165 B.C., Greece was distracted and otherwise engaged as they were in decline. Multiple battles with Rome for over live decades were taking a toll. Greek resources were shifted back to Greece to fight the Romans and it makes no sense for a Greek ruler to begin to act as a dictator. The entire narrative of Antiochus IV Epiphanes needing to enter the Temple to sacrifice a pig instigating another front of war with Judaea would not just be incredibly stupid timing, it never happened, It was the Samaritans who sensed the absence of Greek power and in that vacuum, they seized the opportunity to assault and capture the Temple never returning it to the Levites. They claim to be Levites yet all the sons of Zadok were in the Temple at that time managing worship and none lived in Samaria from where the Maccabees originated. The problem for Maccabees is they came from a foreign country, not Judaea. No sons of Zadok were there in Modrin, and they were not Levites. They were foreign invaders conquering the Temple which they had desired for many centuries. 

pg. 257

Ah yes, it was the Samaritans who assaulted Jerusalem and took over the Temple. Where is this history recorded in the New Testament or anywhere else? It isn't. It's not there. At no time when Jesus encounters the Samaritans does he mention such a history and when he condemns the priests he never calls them fake Samaritans. 

Tim goes on to interpret Daniel 8:9.

And out of one of them came forth a little horn, which waxed exceeding great, toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the pleasant land.

He interprets it this way:

This passage also identifies that this Little Horn rises from inside of the same horn in which Jerusalem is located. Thus, this is not a mystery in the slightest. Jerusalem is in Ptolemy and this enemy, which is not Greece though part of its conquest, are just to the Northwest of Jerusalem which must still be Ptolemy. They cannot be the Seleucids who are already an identified horn and this one is new rising out of Ptolemy which narrows this down. The area there falls outside of Judaea in Samaria but Southern Samaria at this time was still part of Ptolemy's region still. The locals still observed the separation of Judaea from Samaria but Greece and even Rome later, never really did. The Seleucid area begins just North of that which would no longer be Ptolemy and cannot conform to Daniel's prophecy. It is a complete lie that Antiochus IV Epiphanes, a Seleucid, defiled the Temple according to Daniel. 

This must be a power within Ptolemy, smaller than all of Ptolemy, that rises, thus was not risen as a power yet in those days. It cannot be a full horn of four, but a Little Horn rising as a portion of one of the four, and it attacks Ptolemy's portion of Jerusalem including the Temple especially. This means Daniel defines Josephus and Maccabees as a false history as both fail to even understand the geography of those days. The Seleucid Antiochus IV Epiphanes was not from Ptolemy, is not a new power, and cannot rise out of Ptolemy when the horn of his authority was already in power since Alexander's death, and not new. That traditional interpretation has always been harebrained and uneducated. The Dead Sea Scrolls fully reveal this.

pg. 259-256 

This is 100% wrong. The Little Horn is not Samaria. It is Antiochus who warred against Egypt (the south),  the East (Persia), and Israel (the pleasant land.) Samaria did not attack Egypt. Antiochus IV did and that is exactly what Maccabees tells us. 

1 Maccabees 1:16 Now when the kingdom was established before Antiochus, he thought to reign over Egypt that he might have the dominion of two realms.

17 Wherefore he entered into Egypt with a great multitude, with chariots, and elephants, and horsemen, and a great navy,

18 And made war against Ptolemee king of Egypt: but Ptolemee was afraid of him, and fled; and many were wounded to death.

19 Thus they got the strong cities in the land of Egypt and he took the spoils thereof.

20 And after that Antiochus had smitten Egypt, he returned again in the hundred forty and third year, and went up against Israel and Jerusalem with a great multitude,

21 And entered proudly into the sanctuary, and took away the golden altar, and the candlestick of light, and all the vessels thereof,

22 And the table of the shewbread, and the pouring vessels, and the vials. and the censers of gold, and the veil, and the crown, and the golden ornaments that were before the temple, all which he pulled off.

23 He took also the silver and the gold, and the precious vessels: also he took the hidden treasures which he found.

24 And when he had taken all away, he went into his own land, having made a great massacre, and spoken very proudly.

This invasion of Egypt is known as the sixth Syrian war and it is documented in history. Of course Tim does not discuss this because he is dead set on twisting everything he can to "prove" Maccabees is fake history. He also says Maccabees is not cited in the New Testament but that is not true. Paul alludes to the events of Maccabees in Hebrews 11:35.

Women received their dead raised to life again: and others were tortured, not accepting deliverance; that they might obtain a better resurrection:

That is a direct reference to 2 Maccabees 7.

20 But the mother was marvellous above all, and worthy of honourable memory: for when she saw her seven sons slain within the space of one day, she bare it with a good courage, because of the hope that she had in the Lord.

21 Yea, she exhorted every one of them in her own language, filled with courageous spirits; and stirring up her womanish thoughts with a manly stomach, she said unto them,

22 I cannot tell how ye came into my womb: for I neither gave you breath nor life, neither was it I that formed the members of every one of you;

23 But doubtless the Creator of the world, who formed the generation of man, and found out the beginning of all things, will also of his own mercy give you breath and life again, as ye now regard not your own selves for his laws' sake.

Clearly Paul thought the events of Maccabees happened or else he would not have included this bit in his Hall of Faith. 

As I noted Tim's invective against Maccabees is very convoluted and there is no space here to unravel it. What I have written above is quite enough to dismiss his false claims. This whole book is nonsense and I have skipped over quite a lot. Let me end with one more thing. In defending the Book of Tobit as scripture Tim says Acts 20:35 is a direct quote of Tobit 12:8.

For us, there are others we feel Charles and the 1611 KJV may not have found but this is good enough for the connection in secondary evidence. One fascinating controversial scripture is Luke writing of Paul's citation of Yahusha in Acts 20:35 "how he said, It is more blessed to give than to receive." Yahusha did not appear to have said that in the Gospels anywhere and many scholars scoff instead of reconciling. However, it is a direct quote of Tobit 12:8: It is better to give alms than to lay up gold." Did Luke attribute the quote to the wrong person? Perhaps. Does that undermine the whole of scripture? Only for an idiot who is incapable of elementary understanding in these days of scoffing. 

pg. 27

However in volume 1 Tim says Acts 20:35 is a citation from Sirach. 

Also, Acts 20:35 credits Yahusha for saying “It is more blessed to give than to receive.” That is not a quote documented of Yahusha Messiah. This is a quote from Yahusha Ben Sirach 4:31 exactly.

Apocrypha Scrolls Found In Qumran And Those Not Present, Vol. 1, pg. 73

Which one is it?

This book is just more worthless garbage from Timothy Jay Schwab who is The God Culture. There will be more. Tim hints at that in this book he is "testing" more texts in an attempt to restore the Bible. Not that the Bible needs restoring as we have the full Word of God despite Tim's assertions to the contrary.  

The God Culture: The Philippines Is Not Ophir

Have you heard the chatter across the internet that the Philippines is actually the Biblical land of Ophir? It sounds good but once the evidence is sifted the claims turn out to be completely false. Let's take a look at several important reasons why the Philippines is most certainly not Ophir. All of these points have been discussed in my articles debunking Timothy Jay Schwab of The God Culture. 

1. Josephus says India is Ophir

If we want to know where the land of Ophir is why would we not go back to the oldest sources? In the first century AD Josephus wrote an extensive history of the Jewish nation. He tells us in no uncertain terms that Ophir is the Golden Chersonesus which belongs to India. 

4. Moreover the King built many ships in the Egyptian bay of the Red Sea; in a certain place called Ezion-geber. It is now called Berenice; and is not far from the city Eloth. This countrey belonged formerly to the Jews; and became useful for shipping, from the donations of Hiram King of Tyre. For he sent a sufficient number of men thither for pilots, and such as were skilfull in navigation: to whom Solomon gave this command, that they should go along with his own stewards to the land that was of old called Ophir, but now the Aurea Chersonesus: which belongs to India: to fetch him gold. And when they had gathered four hundred talents together, they returned to the King again.

https://penelope.uchicago.edu/josephus/ant-8.html

There is only one place in the entire world which is called the Golden Chersonesus and that is the Malay Peninsula. Therefore the Philippines is not Ophir. 

2. Timothy Jay Schwab agrees India has all the resources attributed to Ophir

In his testing the resources of Ophir The God Culture admits that India has all the resources attributed to Ophir. 

#33: Is India Ophir? 100 Clues The Philippines Is Ophir

2:29 One such claim is that India must be Ophir. Now we will give them that India does in fact have the resources on Solomon's list. Yes it does.

In his book The Search for King Solomon's Treasure he says the same thing. 

The only other coherent claim as far as resources are concerned is India yet it’s own history says it had a source of ancient gold and silver, isles to the East thus none of these make any sense except the Philippines. 

 Every resource of Solomon tests as native to the Philippines and all other claims fail in this chapter except India whose claim already failed the test of it’s own history. 

Solomon's Treasure, pgs. 110 and 115

Notice how in the same sentence Tim contradicts himself by saying India's claim does not fail but also fails the test of history despite Josephus claiming India is Ophir. What is important to note is that Tim admits India has all the resources of Ophir which affirms the historical claim of Josephus that Ophir is in India. 

3. No Ancient Map Shows the Philippines

If the Philippines is actually Ophir then why do all ancient geographies omit the Philippines? 

Because no ancient Romans or Greeks ever sailed to the Philippines. If they did then these expert cartographers would have included it in their descriptions of the world. As it is Ptolemy's map, which is the pinnacle of ancient geography, ends with the Golden Chersonesus and an enclosed Indian Ocean. There is no room for any islands east of the Malay Peninsula because no one had sailed that far east. Yet The God Culture claims Filipinos and Greeks were circumnavigating Africa to trade with one another until the time of Jesus Christ. That is ridiculous and there is simply no getting around this fact no matter how many hoops The God Culture jumps through.

4. Roman artifacts have been found in Mainland Asia but not in the Philippines

If the ancient Romans and Greeks had been sailing to the Philippines to trade then why is there no record of their presence? Roman coins have been found as far east as Vietnam.

Óc Eo (Vietnamese) is an archaeological site in modern-day Óc Eo commune of Thoại Sơn District in An Giang Province of southern Vietnam. Located in the Mekong Delta, Óc Eo was a busy port of the kingdom of Funan between the 2nd century BC and 12th century AD and it may have been the port known to the Romans as Cattigara.

The remains found at Óc Eo include pottery, tools, jewelry, casts for making jewelry, coins, and religious statues. Among the finds are gold jewellery imitating coins from the Roman Empire of the Antonine period. Roman golden medallions from the reign of Antoninus Pius, and possibly his successor Marcus Aurelius, have been discovered at Óc Eo, which was near Chinese-controlled Jiaozhou and the region where Chinese historical texts claim the Romans first landed before venturing further into China to conduct diplomacy in 166. Many of the remains have been collected and are on exhibition in Museum of Vietnamese History in Ho Chi Minh City.

Funan was part of the region of Southeast Asia referred to in ancient Indian texts as Suvarnabhumi, and may have been the part to which the term was first applied.

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

There have been plenty of archaeological digs and finds across the Philippines but no ancient Roman or Greek artifacts have ever been found in the Philippines. That is because they never sailed to or traded with the Philippines.

5. Ophir is Never Described as a Group of Islands

One thing The God Culture is fond of saying is that in the Bible Ophir is called "the isles in the east at the ends of the earth." 

The Search for King Solomon's Treasure, pg. 89

These isles are East at the ends of the Earth and they are identified as Tarshish, Ophir and Sheba.

The Search for King Solomon's Treasure, pg. 93

However, the Bible never mentions Isles in the East or At the Ends of the Earth. 

https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/search.php?hs=1&q=%22isles+in+the+east%22

https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/search.php?hs=1&q=%22at+the+ends+of+the+earth%22

Chapter 8 in his book is a very convoluted misinterpretation of Scripture but unravelling Tim's ridiculous Bible interpretation is beyond the scope of this article. Here is every mention of Ophir in the Bible. At no time is Ophir ever described as a group of islands.

https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/search.php?hs=1&q=ophir

What the Bible has to say about Ophir is very limited. All we know about Ophir geographically is that it is in the east from the Red Sea port of Ezion-geber. Other than that and the list of resources brought back nothing is known about Ophir.  Neither Ophir, Tarshish, or Sheba are ever described as being islands and to twist the Bible to make it say otherwise is bad hermeneutics. 

6. The God Culture Lies Too Much to be Trusted About Anything

The above five reasons are more than enough to reject any claim that the Philippines is Ophir. But The God Culture has gone a step further and produced a series of videos and a book full of convoluted, byzantine, and in some cases fabricated evidence to prove the Philippines is Ophir. Here are just a few of those claims:

Antonio Pigafetta saw elephants in the Philippines.

Fernando Pinto shipwrecked in the Philippines and placed them at 9N20.

Filipinos and Greeks regularly circumnavigated Africa to trade with one another. 

The Lequios Islands are Luzon Island in the Philippines.

Antonio Pigafetta's journal is the only eyewitness source to Magellan's landing in the Philippines.

Antonio Pigafetta claimed Samar Island is Cattigara. 

The Philippines is Antillia.

The City of Manila is mentioned on a 1492 map.

The Behaim map is Portuguese when it is really German. 

And the list goes on. 

Over the past few years I have meticulously dismantled and exposed the nonsense of Timothy Jay Schwab. He lies when he says no one has disproved him in seven years. I have done that a multitude of times and I will continue to do so. 

Conclusion

This is just a brief list of the many reasons the Philippines is not Ophir. I believe they are the strongest reasons. The oldest testimony as to where Ophir is locates it in India in the Golden Chersonesus. Ancient maps prove that no one knew anything past the Golden Chersonesus. The Bible never describes Ophir as islands in the east at the ends of the earth. Those facts cannot be overcome and with that Timothy Jay Schwab's case for the Philippines as Ophir is untenable ab initio.

The God Culture: Message To Congress

In late August 2023 Timothy Jay Schwab, also known as The God Culture, gave a talk in Davao at a conference hosted by Bishop Rod Cubos. Tim has posted a few selections from that lecture online and that is what I wish to discuss. 

Is Philippines Ophir? Recent News. Live in Davao. Message to Congress.

A message to Congress? But Tim is on record saying that The God Culture is apolitical. 

Ancient Prophecy Philippines: MARCOS Prophesied! The Life of Lam-Ang. Solomon's Gold Series 15B

3:40 Before we start The God Culture does not support political parties and that's not what this video is about. We don't endorse anyone, neither candidate nor nobody. We said nothing of this election that just took place. Not a word. 

Ok, that only says that Tim does not support any political parties which is fine since it would be illegal for him to do so as a foreigner. But that does not mean he is apolitical. His entire message that the Philippines will rise in the last days to condemn the New World Order is drenched in politics. Let us not forget that he claims The Ophir Institute, which he founded, is a think tank. 

https://www.ophirinstitute.com/bio

The Ophir Institute is a think tank in the Philippines that has focused on the mystery of the pre-colonial history of our country.

And what is the definition of a think tank?

A think tank, or policy institute, is a research institute that performs research and advocacy concerning topics such as social policy, political strategy, economics, military, technology, and culture. Most think tanks are non-governmental organizations, but some are semi-autonomous agencies within government or are associated with particular political parties or businesses. Think-tank funding often includes a combination of millionaire donations and individual contributions, with many also accepting government grants.

Think tanks publish articles, studies or even draft legislation on particular matters of policy or society. This information is then readily used by governments, businesses, media organizations, social movements or other interest groups as part of their goals. Think tanks range from those associated with highly academic or scholarly activities to those that are overtly ideological and pushing for particular policy, with widely differing quality of research among them. Later generations of think tanks have tended to be more ideologically-oriented.

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

It is not clear if Tim has written any policy papers to be submitted to Congress but he has declared he is ready to appear before Congress to "restore these facts."

45:17 We will restore these facts. If we have to go to Congress ourselves we will restore these facts.

In fact the ground work is being laid as Tim claims his fraudulent book and videos are being taught in at least one  COLLEGE classroom in the Philippines. 

1:01:35 Of course we we understand there's a lot of professors out there whose jobs are at stake if they took a stand for this. But do you know there are some that are teaching this in classrooms? I won't expose them but there's one who asked us for Solomon's Treasure and we sent them copies for their classrooms. There's another one that's using the videos and they're actually showing Solomon's Gold Series in the college classroom.

Imagine this moron's book being taught in a college classroom. It is unfathomable. 

But Timothy Jay Schwab does have a message for Congress. Here it is:

What an Amazing Typo! It Should be Rappler not Rapper.

1:02:46 I want to do a little something if you don't mind. I'd like to give Congress an answer today. Will you do that? Will you rise to your feet with me? Will everyone stand to your feet ?And I want to do a little exercise, just a little exercise and I'm going to make sure this makes it to Congress, all right? This is our response to the Philippines as Ophir. We're going to say bring back Ophir. Amen? Let's do this. Bring back Ophir. Bring back Ophir. Bring back Ophir. Bring back Ophir.

How can Tim guarantee this response will make it back to Congress? Obviously he has connections. 

This video is so ridiculous and is full of the same nonsense Tim has taught for the past six years to Filipinos and then some. I am not going to rehash his erroneous worldview. Do see my God Culture archive for all that matter. 

What is to be noted here is that Tim is not a backwoods hick who caught Youtube fame on a lark. He is being supported by a lot of wealthy backers. Don't forget Timothy Jay Schwab once had a ritual dinner with the Lakanate of Tondo where he changed his name. 

This particular conference was put on by Bishops Rod and Ruth Cubos in Davao City. What are they Bishops of you might ask? Their own kingdom. They are not real Bishops but Tim loves them so much. What a hypocrite to spit on the Church and endorse these fake Bishops. 

Now, this video is basically a response to Congressman Dan Fernandez's privilege speech where he claimed the Philippines is Ophir and should be renamed as such. In this video Tim complains about people and groups such as Rappler dismissing the Philippines being Ophir without even reading his book. As if his book is the end all be all case for the Philippines being Ophir. Since it is a poorly written, poorly researched, and poorly argued book Timothy Jay Schwab should hope it never goes mainstream and he never appears before Congress to deliver his false message. 

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.