The God Culture: 100 Lies About the Philippines: Lie #32: The Philippines is Japan

Welcome back to 100 lies the God Culture teaches about the Philippines. Today's lie concerns Timothy Jay Schwab's claim that the Philippines is Japan. Specifically he claims the island known as Zipangu is the Philippines. Tim's proof for this claim comes from Marco Polo's description of Zipangu.

Tim has a lot of proofs for this claim but we shall listen to only one of them because it his most important. He calls it the "nail in the coffin."

Marco Polo's Account of the Isle of Gold in the Philippines! Garden of Eden Revealed: Part 3

35:38 Now we progress to the nail in the coffin for Japan, not just this criteria but the next coming because this is just like, ERRRR, that's it. This one's about geography. Oh yeah, this account actually has geography. Academics and Scholars ignore it but it's there and you can't ignore it. Yes, it is always provided the direction of Kubla Khan's Journey to Zipangu into the South China Sea. Oops. Japan's not there.

"You must know that the gulf containing this island is called that of Zin" or Sin or Sina. Oh, wait a minute that's a reference to China but specifically to South China. Oh. Oops! Now, what is its sea, well it's called the South China Sea also referred to as Sin or Zin uh even on some maps. The South China Sea. Now, we don't have to guess though because this is really simple to test. Meaning in their language the sea opposite to Manji. Oops. Wait. Manji is what? Manji is South China and this is specifically the South China Sea. "According to skillful and intelligent mariners who have made the voyage it contains," BOOM, this is huge, "7,448 isles mostly inhabited." Now, oops, that's only half of Japan. That's pretty bad. Uh, and yet the Philippines has about that number of islands even to this day.

The problem for Tim is that the section mentioning 7,448 islands is not about Zipangu. Just before proceeding to describe this area Marco Polo says he is done with describing Zipangu and is moving on to something completely different. 

https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.48005/page/n285/mode/2up

But I must tell you one thing still concerning that Island (and ’tis the same with the other Indian Islands), that if the natives take prisoner an enemy who cannot pay a ransom, he who hath the prisoner summons all his friends and relations, and they put the prisoner to death, and then they cook him and eat him, and they say there is no meat in the world so good!—But now we will have done with that Island and speak of something else. 

You must know the Sea in which lie the Islands of those parts is called the Sea of Chin, which is as much as to say “The Sea over against Manzi.”

The edition of Marco Polo Tim is using omits that sentence about speaking of something else so it will simply not do to use this translation against him. Another edition from 1880 also omits that sentence. 

https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.283939/page/n381/mode/2up

It is to be understood that the sea in which the island of Zipangu is situated is called the Sea of Chin and so extensive is this eastern sea, that according to the report of experienced pilots and mariners who frequent it, and to whom the truth must be known, it contains no fewer than seven thousand four hundred and forty islands, mostly inhabited.

A note on this passage says:

The limits of the China Sea, not being accurately defined, it is impossible to verify this pretended enumeration of its islands, which is evidently meant to include the Moluccas or those from whence the spices are chiefly procured.

The Sea being described by Marco Polo is the entire ocean east of China. It is not specifically the South China Sea. 

Looking at the edition of Marco Polo Tim uses we read the following: 

pgs. 275-276

You must know, that the gulf containing this island is called that of Zin, meaning in their language the sea opposite to Manji. According to skilfull and intelligent mariners, who have made the voyage, it contains 7,448 isles, mostly inhabited.

Even without looking at other translations it is clear that the one used by Tim does not say Zipangu is composed of 7,448 islands. What it says is Zipangu is in the Sea of China and the Sea of China is so immense it contains 7,448 islands.

The mention of 7,448 islands has nothing to do with Zipangu. At this point in the Travels he has finished talking about Zipangu and is discussing the expansiveness of the Sea of China and the numerous islands it contains. 

This is not the nail in the coffin Tim thinks it is. It is however the nail in the coffin for Tim's claims the Philippines is Zipangu. If he had been paying attention to what this section actually says he would not have wasted time doing a resource test.

Instead he would have realized Marco Polo had moved on and was no longer talking about Zipangu. 

The claim the Philippines is Zipangu is simply one more lie being taught about the Philippines by Timothy Jay Schwab who is The God Culture. 

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

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

pg. 130

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

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

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

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

pg. 131

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

pg. 141

Revelation of the Magi is espousing good theology here.

pg. 149

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

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

Tim comments on this verse:

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

pg. 132

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

pg. 61

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

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

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

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

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

The God Culture: The Mystery of the Three Kings Book Review, Part 3: Magi is Maginoo

Having reviewed Timothy Jay Schwab's new book The Mystery of the Three Kings and shown that he has no idea what he is talking about and that the text of Revelation of the Magi contradicts him it is time to take a look at a few other things. In this article I will be reviewing Tim's claim the Greek word Magos is actually a Filipino word. 

The Mystery of the Three Kings, pg. 68

The title of the chapter is Magi is not a Word From the Greek. Already we are in bad etymological territory as magi (magos) is certainly a Greek word which is found in the Bible. Case closed, right? No, because Tim does a little dance and makes a little mess which needs cleaning up.

Here is Tim's introduction to the matter. 

One of the greatest revelations needed from Revelation of the Magi (RotM) is that the word Magi or Magos from the Wise Kings narrative does not originate in the Greek language. Greece is not East. The same could be said of Africa (which some scholars try to force), but for this to work, one must forget what direction both left and right are. Those are not theories. Yes, it is written in Greek in the New Testament (as the rest of the canonical books are), but is it Greek in origin? What if, instead, there was evidence that the word derives from its land and its language of nativity? It turns out, there is, thanks to this text. How many times have we all heard the Christmas sermon about how the Wise Men were not Kings? That is false, they were certainly Kings. 12 in all, there were more than three in number indeed, but three still has precedence, as you will find.

Then, even the highest of scholars takes us to the faulty assumption the Babylonian and/or Persian Magoi are injected by The Gospel of Matthew. They ignore that those Magoi were not even in power in the first century. They are still rebuked as satanic sorcerers in the same New Testament. One does not need to go to the Old Testament to learn how to read a word well defined in the New. They are changing the Bible when they do so, against its own interpretation itself.

They will make up fiction, supposing the sorcerers converted to the religion of Daniel. That is not ever a Bible account; it is poor assumption they cannot make. The fact that they have to manufacturer such a story to make their lie work should be evident. Certainly, Daniel was the head over the Biblical Wise Men, such as Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, but sorcerers were his satanic enemy. For a theologian to assume such a thing is nonsense. Daniel never became head of the magicians. He was head of the Sophos; the Wise Men.

p. 69

What exactly does Tim think he is accomplishing here? Everyone familiar with the matter knows magi does not originate in Greek but is a Babylonian/Persian loanword. What Tim really means is magi isn't a Persian word not magi isn't a Greek word. He can't even get his claim right.

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/g3097/kjv/tr/0-1/

the name given by the Babylonians (Chaldeans), Medes, Persians, and others, to the wise men, teachers, priests, physicians, astrologers, seers, interpreters of dreams, augers, soothsayers, sorcerers etc.

Look at that. Magos is a catch-all generic word which does not only mean sorcerer but can also mean teacher, physician, or wise men. Context matters. Matthew calls them Magos because they came from the East. They were Wise Men (Magos) from the East. If they had come from somewhere else then perhaps Matthew would not have used the word magos. In Acts magos is translated sorcerer because that's what those specific people were, men who used magic and sorcery. 

Keep in mind the word is magos and this word is also in the Septuagint in Daniel. That means the word was known BEFORE the Magi came to visit the Child Jesus. Tim is going to say this is a Filipino word originating in the word Maginoo. How can this be when the word dates at least to the time of Herodotus?

This name has come to us through the Greeks as the proper designation of the priestly class among the Persians (Herod. 1:132, 140; Xenoph., Cyrop. 8:1, 23; Plato, Alcib. 1:122; Diog. Laert. Parouem. 1, 2; Cicero, De Divin. 1:41; Apul. Apol. 1p. 32 ed. Casaubon, p. 290 ed. Elmenhorst; Porphyr. De Abst. 1. 4.; Hesych. s.v. Μάγος).

https://www.biblicalcyclopedia.com/M/magi.html 

Here is the citation from Herodotus which dates to 425 B.C.

When he has so arranged it, a Magus comes near and chants over it the song of the birth of the gods, as the Persian tradition relates it; for no sacrifice can be offered without a Magus.

 http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Hdt.%201.132&lang=original

Tim has a lot to say about Daniel to prove his thesis that the Magi in Matthew were not Persians. According to Tim Daniel was not placed in charge of the magicians but the Wise Men as the Greek word in the Septuagint is Sophos not Magos. 

Certainly, Daniel was the head over the Biblical Wise Men, such as Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, but sorcerers were his satanic enemy. For a theologian to assume such a thing is nonsense. Daniel never became head of the magicians. He was head of the Sophos; the Wise Men.

pg. 69

The reference to the Book of Daniel’s Wise Men of Daniel 5:8, for instance, is not Magos. Daniel uses the Hebrew word hakim, which is a general term for those considered to hold knowledge above the regular folk. Taking that generality and assuming it into Matthew’s Wise Men is illiterate. However, he rattles off others in a listing that separates them. The King’s Wise Men that are described in the Book of Daniel were not the Magi described in the Book of Matthew. Even the era is very disconnected, as those Magi had no part in the New Testament except as enemies. One who supposedly converted to the Biblical faith would no longer be called a sorcerer. They would have to leave that satanic paradigm.

The Wise Men described in the Book of Daniel, however, are not Magos in Greek. According to the Greek Septuagint translation, the word is sophos meaning wise; not even Magos. It would not matter, however, if it was the same word; it most certainly is not the same concept in the Book of Matthew. Indeed, among those the King considered wise could definitely be sorcerers, however, they are still not called Magos by Daniel in the Greek Septuagint. They are still called sophos, instead, in Daniel 2:12, 13, 14, 18, 24, 27, and 48. Matthew’s Gospel repeats that in 23:34, using sophos as well; referring to prophets, wise men and scribes. Daniel does not even call them Magos. To equate that term solely based on a misunderstanding of a different word is not scholarship.

pg. 70

Tim is correct here in saying the King would consider sorcerers to be Wise Men. In Daniel sophos (wise men) is a catch-all term which includes enchanters, magicians, and soothsayers. Tim is wrong when he says Daniel was never head of the magicians.

Daniel 2:48 Then the king made Daniel a great man, and gave him many great gifts, and made him ruler over the whole province of Babylon, and chief of the governors over all the wise men of Babylon.

Daniel 4:9 O Belteshazzar, master of the magicians, because I know that the spirit of the holy gods is in thee, and nosecret troubleth thee, tell me the visions of my dream that I have seen, and the interpretation thereof.

In 2:48 Daniel is made ruler over all the wise men (Sophos) of Babylon and in 4:9 he is called master of the magicians (ἐπαοιδῶν). That is because Sophos is a catch-all term for enchanters, magicians, and soothsayers.

Daniel 5:11 further affirms the above two verses and says he was put in charge not of the Wise Men (Sophos) but of the magicians (magos) among others.

There is a man in thy kingdom, in whom is the Spirit of God; and in the days of thy father watchfulness and understanding were found in him; and king Nabuchodonosor thy father made him chief of the enchanters, magicians, Chaldeans, and soothsayers.

https://biblehub.com/sep/daniel/5.htm

Here is the Greek with the relevant words highlighted.

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lxx/dan/5/1/s_855001

The first word highlighted is archon which means chief or ruler. The second is the word for enchanter as in verse 2:48. The third word is magos which is translated as magician. Daniel was made archon or ruler of the enchanters, magicians, Chaldeans, and soothsayers who constitute the Wise Men of Babylon. 

Tim is totally wrong in his assessment of Daniel. The Septuagint version of Daniel does not help Tim's case at all. Tim's comments only muddy the waters for readers who won't or can't take the time to learn exactly how Sophos and Magos is used in the Septuagint version of Daniel. 

That should be the end of the matter but of course it's not. Tim's fake Filipino etymology for this word is incredibly stupid. Let's look at it anyway. 

What if the Philippines actually had a documented social class of royals known as the MAGI in their native, ancient language? Of course, that would be impossible. No such thing could ever occur... unless... it does! Filipinos already know what we are conveying as there is an ancient royal classification known as the MAGInoo. This was the highest social order, which included what one would refer to as Kings and princes. Then, Revelation of the Magi tells us these were Kings, sons of Kings, and Wise Men. It is not difficult.

MAGInoo: Tagalog: gentleman; gentlemanly; honorable.

maginoohin: of gentlemanly habits or bearing. Root: ginoó: mister; sir; gentleman. The female counterpart to “ginoo” is “ginang.” pagka-máginoó: Tagalog: quality of being noble, worthy or stately.

This title for royalty in the Philippines preceded the Spanish arrival recorded in use in 1571 and 1690 among other references. Better yet, it was recorded in the first century by the Apostle Matthew, who used the Greek language to express a word that was not of Greek origin. He was translating Tagalog into Greek.

pgs. 71-72

Behold Tim's brilliant solution! Matthew was translating Tagalog into Greek by transforming Maginoo into the word Magos. Why would Matthew shorten the word from Maginoo to Magos? Why would the usage of Magos in Matthew be different from that in Acts? Tim never explains how Magos is Filipino for Maginoo in Matthew and is Greek for sorcerer in Acts. Instead he gives a litany of Filipino words that begin with mag or magi and this is supposed to be his proof that Matthew was translating Tagalog into Greek. There was also no royal class in the Philippines known as Magi or Magos. They were called Maginoo. The words are not the same!

However, the scoffing academic would then ignorantly claim, “that is simply not enough.” No, it is not, and that is not the end of this narrative. What about these two definitions of prayer and silence? Certainly, neither of those could be of Philippine origin. Scoff! Scoff! Snark! Oops! They both are! In Tagalog, the national Filipino language, the prefix mag is used in magdasal, meaning to pray. MAG and MAGI are the origin, the root words, with a plethora of combinations in linguistics, which identify even other traits of the ancient Magi Filipino. Wow!

mag+root: [affix/verb] to do something; to do an occupation; to go; to use something; to wear something; to do a reciprocal action; to be.

MAGdasál: Tagalog: to pray.3

MAGa-ampo: Ilonggo/Hiligaynon: to pray. managampo: Bisaya: ampo: to surrender.

pg. 72

If Tim wants to go this route of listing words with mag in them how about this verse from Jeremiah 39:3.

And all the princes of the king of Babylon came in, and sat in the middle gate, even Nergalsharezer, Samgarnebo, Sarsechim, Rabsaris, Nergalsharezer, Rabmag, with all the residue of the princes of the king of Babylon.

Rabmag means magian or Magian or soothsayer or an official of Babylon.

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/h7248/kjv/wlc/0-1/

Is this word also of Filipino origin? Or perhaps it is more proof Tim is wrong about his etymology of magos. 

Finally, Tim gives us this gem.

The Chinese were documenting the account all along. They went to the Philippines to trade with an island, likely Mindoro, which they called MA-I or MA- YI. Wait! You mean they were attempting to express MAGI? We find that likely.

“An edict of 972 indicates that Mindoro (Ma-i) was part of that trade: In the fourth year of the K’ai Pao period [972], a superintendent of maritime trade was set up in Kwangchow, and afterwards in Hangchow and Mingchow also a superintendent was appointed for all Arab, Achen, Java, Borneo, Ma-i, and Srivijaya barbarians, whose trade passed through there, they taking away gold, silver, strings of cash, lead, tin, many-colored silk, and porcelain...” –William Henry Scott

“The first Philippine tribute mission to China appears to have come from Butuan on 17 March 1001. Butuan (P’u-tuan) is described in the Sung Shih (Sung History) as a small country in the sea to the east of Champa, farther than Ma-i...” –William Henry Scott5

Mindoro is on the way to Butuan, and we vet that further in The Search for King Solomon’s Treasure: The Lost Isles of Gold & The Garden of Eden. However, one of the most amazing facts about Mindoro or Ma-Yi, is the name of its indigenous tribes– the MAGI! Mindoro is historically famous for its skill in working with gold in fact.

Mang yan:

Mangyan is the generic name for the eight indigenous groups found in Mindoro each with its own tribal name, language, and customs. The Mangyans were once the only inhabitants of Mindoro 

pgs. 78-79

"We find that likely?" That is not a proof! That is conjecture. Ma-I is not Magi or Maginoo. Also the tribes of Mindoro are not called Magi but Mangyan as Tim even admits just after calling them Magi! Why is he lying about the Mangyan being Magi when he has already said Magi has its origins in Maginoo? He can't even keep his theories straight. 

This whole chapter is completely worthless. Not one time does Tim attempt to prove Matthew was "translating Tagalog into Greek" or that the Chinese meant Magi by Ma-I. He simply sates it as a fact and moves on to listing Filipino words with mag or magi claiming that is proof enough. He even has the gall to say the tribes of Mindoro are called Magi and then show they are actually called Mangyan! He is blatantly lying to the reader's face and is making it all up as he goes. He is "Baffling with BS." Tim is in fact storytelling. 

Are we "storytelling" or are we presenting the facts?

pg. 161

There is no reason to debate Tim on every word he lists because he has said Magi means Maginoo yet he has not proved that Matthew was "translating Tagalog into Greek." The Greek word magos pre-dates the Gospel of Matthew in Herodotus by almost 500 years. He does not even try to prove his case in any meaningful way except to say, "Look! This word looks and sounds like that word therefore it is that word or it is related to that word." That is not how linguistics works!

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

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

Revelation of the Magi Study with Tim Schwab and Lisa George

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

Wow! What a question, you know?

I know I like that question.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The God Culture: The Mystery of the Three Kings Book Review, Part 2: Revelation of the Magi

In part 1 of this review of The Mystery of the Three Kings I analyzed Timothy Jay Schwab's guiding foundational principles. Those were the Magi must have taken a two year journey to arrive in Israel and the "restored geography" of Psalm 72 tells us the Magi originated in the Philippines. Now I shall take a look at Tim's arguments from the text of Revelation of the Magi itself.

https://issuu.com/thegodculture/docs/three_kings_ebook

Tim has this to say about Revelation of the Magi:

We are not looking to conduct a counsel to vote it into Biblical Canon, but those who ignore history are destined to repeat it. Test this for yourself; you will find there is nothing in the content of Revelation of the Magi that is bothersome.

pg. 57

Nothing bothersome? As we shall see there is a lot to for Tim to be bothered about in Revelation of the Magi.

Chapter two of Revelation of the Magi says:

RotM 2:4 These are kings, sons of Eastern kings, in the land of Shir, which is the outer part of the entire East of the world inhabited by human beings, at the Ocean, the great sea beyond the world, east of the land of Nod, that place in which dwelt Adam, head and chief of all the families of the world

pg. 83

The Magi came from the land of Shir. Where is Shir? Here is what Tim has to say:

In the introduction of Revelation of the Magi, translator Brent Landau oddly refers to this land of Shir as “semi mythical” and in one footnote as “mythical.” It is neither. This is because he never researched where it was and is unqualified to speculate. He cannot even seem to agree in his own footnotes. His translation appears unmanipulated, but his interpretation is unfortunately uneducated on this topic. There is nothing mythical about the land which we will prove has always existed and is even mapped for 6,000 years. Such terminology is deceiving, as it infers he draws conclusions to what he never researched. It is only myth to him because he does not have such knowledge. We find this inexcusable though routine in Bible scholarship.

If they do not understand it, it must be fiction. Perhaps this is their thinking: they possess a kind of godhood, which is mythical. However, having conducted this research for over a decade, we prove it to be the Land of Gold described in the Bible, which houses the Garden of Eden and is known as Ophir, Sheba and Tarshish in the Philippines. Even this word, Shir, is Hebrew in origin, and appears to be a direct characteristic and prophecy of the Philippines.

shir: שיר: Masculine noun meaning song in much the same way as our English word. It’s used for religious songs (Psalm 42:8, Nehemiah 12:46), triumphal songs (Judges 5:12), festive songs (Genesis 31:27), love songs (Song of Solomon 1:1), etc. Denominative verb: shir: שיר: to sing (Exodus 15:1, 1 Samuel 18:6, Isaiah 26:1). Feminine noun: שירה (shira), also meaning song (Exodus 15:1, Isaiah 5:1). This feminine noun seems to denote the more odic song.– Abarim Publications

In Hebrew, the word shir is very revealing. It means to sing or song in Bible usage. Anyone familiar with the culture of the Philippines is aware that singing is deeply rooted in its DNA. This is really the mechanism that will lead to the fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy of these famed isles at the end of the Earth who sing. Shir is a perfect connotation for the isles that sing at the ends of the Earth, precisely fitting the Magi geography from their first century writing, affirmed in Isaiah and Psalm.

pg. 99

Translator Brent Landau says Shir is mythical. Tim says that is not the case because Shir is Hebrew for singing, Filipinos love to sing, therefore Shir is the Philippines! QED. But that doesn't prove anything. 

I do not have the edition of Revelation of the Magi Tim has. What I have is Brent Landau's doctoral thesis which is an analysis and translation of the text. Here is his footnote on Shir in 2:4.

In contrast to the “land of the East,” the name “Shir” (Syr. 􏰀􏰁􏰂) is less common in the RevMagi, used only twice. However, it appears in a number of other ancient texts as a mysterious and faraway land, sometimes identified with China: see Josephus, Ant. 1.68-71; Bardaisan, Book of the Laws of Countries (ed. and trans. H.J.W. Drijvers, p.40-43); Strabo, Geogr. XI.11.1; Pliny, NH, VI.20.54.

The Sages and the Star Child, pg. 79

In Chapter 5 section 4B Landau writes:

The RevMagi not only names the home country of the Magi as Shir, but places it in the easternmost part of the inhabited world, at the shore of the great Ocean. Localizing the Magi in this region taps into pre-existing traditions about the land of Shir and the far edges of the earth. A land known as Shir is mentioned in Greek, Latin, and Syriac sources; Flavius Josephus (Ant. 1.68-71), the geographer Strabo (Geogr. XI.11.1), Pliny the Elder (NH VI.20.54), and the second-century Syriac Christian philosopher Bardaisan (Book of the Laws of Countries), existence and traits. In these sources, Shir is a faraway land whose inhabitants possess among others, discuss its number of fantastic characteristics, including primeval wisdom, extreme longevity of life, and an absence of such typical human concerns as sickness and warfare. In his article on the land of Shir in ancient literature, G. Reinink demonstrated that the people called the Seres are quite often associated with the commodity of silk. Therefore, despite its description as a kind of never-never land, Shir was also connected with the very real land of China, known to the West primarily through the silk trade. The RevMagi therefore demonstrates an awareness of traditions about the people Seres and the land Shir that find attestation elsewhere.

The Sages and the Star Child, pg. 261-262

As you can see Tim is wrong about Shir and Landau. There is an actual recorded history of the land of Shir outside of Revelation of the Magi that leads to China. Tim's edition might not have this information but it is available. It is quite ridiculous to say shir is Hebrew for singing, Filipinos love to sing, therefore Shir is the Philippines. 

Later on Tim will connect Shir to the province of Sirigao.

Very close to Camiguin Island in Northern Mindanao, there is a large province known historically as Surigao with Siargao (Shir-gaw) Island as well. Maps have identified it as an ancient region with the name of Shir. Coincidence? The name originates in the local Waray language which is extremely revealing.

It is interesting that Surigao/Siargao (Shir-gaw) comes from the Waray word “sirak” meaning “sunlight or sunshine.” Imagine this definition even leads to the Land of Light. This name translates to Greek, even in the apocryphal book::סרה (Wisdom of Sirach/Ben Sira, from the 1611 KJV. In Hebrew, that form is sirah Çirâh: withdrawing of a fountain, Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon H5626). However, it also leads us to Shir from the prophecy of the Philippines in Isaiah 42:10 (H7891: shîyr: שיר) in this prophetic Land of Song.

pg. 123

It's more of his silly etymology which is that a word looks and sounds like another word therefore it is that word. But as noted above the Land of Shir was not unknown to antiquity and is mentioned in several documents which predate Revelation of the Magi. 

The next important argument Tim employs is the names of the Magi as given in Revelation of the Magi.

pg. 159

“RotM 2:3 The names of the wise men and kings were called as follows: Zaharwandad son of Artaban; Hôrmizd son of Sanatruq; Auštazp son of Gudaphar; Aršak son of Mihruq; Zarwand son of Wadwad; Arîhô son of Kosrau; Artahšišat son of Hawîlat; Aštanbôzan son of Šîîšrawan; Mihruq son of Humam; Ahširaš son of Sahban; Nasardîh son of Baladan; Merôdak son of Bîl. 2:4 These are kings, sons of Eastern kings, in the land of Shir...”

In researching these names of the twelve Wise Men of the Philippines of which some were Kings, sons of Kings and others Wise Men, it would be negligent to fail to at least attempt to connect some of these to the Filipino languages in origin. The geography is truly indisputable, and now, let us see if the linguistics are as well.

This is research no one seems to have ever conducted, but with the proper geography, we at least know we are looking in the right place. This really fulfills a leg of affirmation as well as it can in any language. For those who would say some of these could be other languages, they should first test the geography, which they have not, or they would not attempt such an illiterate point. The purpose of this exercise is not to promise definitive relation, but to test an association that should exist, at least for some. Once again, we have a match with even direct names.

pg. 160

Tims reasoning is that once the proper geography of the Magi's origin is restored it is only reasonable that their names should reflect the language of that area. The Magi are from the Philippines as prophesied in Psalm 72 therefore their names should contain traces of Tagalog and other local Filipino languages.

This whole chapter can be immediately dismissed because Tim's geography is wrong. Psalm 72 is not a prophecy of the Magi and Ophir, Tarshish, and Sheba are not the Philippines. But that would be too easy. Tim is very sure that several of these names are 100% Filipino words. 

pg. 161

Brent Landau's note on these names is illuminating.

As for the names found in the RevMagi, I have incorporated without changes the spelling of the names as found in the Latin translation accompanying the most recent critical edition of the CZuq; see Chabot, 121: 45. As noted in Chabot, 91:57, several names in this list are corrupt (nonnulla corrupta sunt). The only Syriac text with vocalized forms of these names is Solomon of Basra’s Book of the Bee 39, though the spelling there is slightly different. See Bee, 84-85. Variations of this list of twelve names also appear in the works of Theodore bar Konai, Dionysius bar Salibi, Michael the Syrian, and Moshe bar Kepha. For the forms of the names in these Syriac sources, see the tables in Magi in Syriac 2007, 30-33; H. Kehrer, Drei Könige, 1:72-73. Witakowski also points out that these names are derived from the names of Persian and Babylonian kings and gods, see his Magi in Syriac 2007, 2.

The Sages and the Star Child, p 78

Just like the Land of Shir, these names are found in sources other than Revelation of the Magi. One scholar says these names are derived from Persian and Babylonian kings and gods. His paper can be read here.

The point is there is a whole tradition of the Magi in Syriac that Tim is ignoring in order to pretend the Philippines can be found in the Bible. That makes claims like the following:

This document preserved by the Vatican was originally written by Filipinos, in fact.

p. 183

completely 

retarded and illogical.

pg. 124

The document was written in Syriac and is attested to in other Syriac sources. Except for what Tim conjures up out of his head, there is no evidence Revelation of the Magi was written in Tagalog, Illocano, Visayan, or any other native Filipino language. 

In part 1 I noted that Tim's first foundational principle is that the Magi travelled for two years. However, a two year journey is not recorded in Revelation of the Magi. Here is the entire narrative of the journey to Israel as recorded in chapter 16.

16:1 And when all these things and many others were spoken about the revelation that appeared to us, the star was with us in (its) all excellent forms so we could see it. And we spoke about it like frail human beings, not being able to say anything that we saw.

16:2 And we got ready with our whole encampment, and with our provisions, and with the pure and holy gifts, those that we brought out of the Cave of Treasures of Hidden Mysteries, in which they were [deposited] previously by our fathers, and we went forth in great joy, our hearts exulting to come to the place that was commanded to us, to worship the vision of the star of infinite light.

16:3 And the star, our guide, our good messenger, our perfect light, our glorious leader, again appeared for us, going before us and upholding our whole caravan from all sides, and enlightening us by its hidden light.

16:4 And we had no need of the light of the sun or of the moon, because their light became diminished in its sight, and by night and by day we walked in its light, exulting and rejoicing without distress or weariness. 

16:5 And it prepared before us a blessed dwelling-place in which to reside while we rested and exulted. Even our provisions were abundant in our eyes and did not decrease, but rather from one day to another they increased when it came to rest over us with its light.

16:6 And it gave rest to us from all our fatigue as if we were not journeying on the road, and it made mountains, and hills, and rugged places level before us. Even the rivers before us we crossed by foot without fear, because of the light of our good guide that went along with us for our encampment. And again, when we crossed into the places [of beasts and vicious snakes,] we trampled them with our feet.

16:7 And our leader and our guide, in his glory, appeared to each one of us in all forms and appearances in every (stage.) And he filled our hearts with great joy, and all the (stages) in which we journeyed were short and swift in our eyes, because our victorious sign and our powerful light, which is beyond every human mouth to speak, guided us with its victorious strength.

Not only is this obviously a journey over land but it was also a very swift journey. It does not say how swift but two years is not swift. Thus Tim's first foundational principle, the journey of the Magi took two years which means they came from the Philippines by boat circumnavigating Africa, contradicts this very text. How can Tim not find this to be bothersome? Unsurprisingly Tim does not discuss the actual travel narrative of Revelation of the Magi. He'd rather not bother with it at all. 

As I noted in part 1 there is a lot of information in this book. In fact, Tim is essentially rehashing his entire Philippines is Ophir, Tarshish, Land of Creation, Garden of Eden thesis using Revelation of the Magi as a prop. Not only does Tim's thesis weave in and out on every page but so does the invective against scholars including Brent Landau who translated Revelation of the Magi. Here is one of many examples. 

One of the most inept criticisms by Brent Landau, translator of Revelation of the Magi, is his accusation of the text not mentioning the name of Jesus. It is hard to believe that a Bible scholar does not know that Jesus cannot even be rendered as a word in Ancient Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, nor Latin. These languages did not contain the letter “J’ until the 1500’s, and the New Testament does not actually use that name either. It appears he never bothered to look up the Hebrew name of Yahusha which means “Yah is salvation.” So, if we wish to find whether Yahusha was invoked in the text, we would simply look for the word “salvation.” Such a word study proves that the name of Yahusha is there several times in context. This author translated the name into English, forgetting that is what His name is.

In fact, in some instances, the text is very clearly invoking the actual name of Yahusha, who is salvation, as if we are to believe in “salvation,” which is erroneous in application. We are to believe in Yahusha, who is salvation. That is His name. Has Landau read the New Testament, or even his own translation? Landau translated the name “Jesus Christ” several times; once before the section involving the Apostle Thomas. It is not the only place where Jesus Christ is mentioned. Landau disassociates with that section invalidly, (which is ridiculous), as it is a necessary piece for the manuscript to be complete.

RotM 29:6 And Judas said: “My brothers, I also rejoice, because it is for this gift that I was sent in salvation (Yahusha!), since everyone who believes in salvation and with love receives the seal of my Lord Jesus Christ in truth, the Enemy does not rule over.”

When the Apostle Thomas visited the Philippines on his mission there, he absolutely and indisputably spoke the name of Yahusha. Anyone can see the obvious where Thomas said: “I was sent in Yahusha” which is not accurate to say He was “sent in salvation.” Landau says “he who believes in salvation.” Even Satan believes in salvation, trembles, and knows it is fact. We are to believe in the Son, as scripture specifies. There is only one way to salvation, through the Son. Landaualso translates it improperly when the Magi receive the seal of “my Lord Jesus Christ.” This should read Yahusha Messiah. Even though this is Syriac, translated to Latin, then to English, Landau knew it was Jesus, but could not recognize Yahusha’s name. The majority of Bible Scholars and most church-goers will not recognize this important dynamic of the text.

Yahusha means salvation, but His name is right there in the text, translated to English, forgotten in Hebrew, and close in Greek. It is His name, regardless of transliteration. Was salvation born, or was Yahusha born? An educated translator should have known this. The below descriptions would read so much better as the mystery, light, birth, child, gift, voice of Yahusha. There are too many to ignore.

pg. 209-210

This is total nonsense. Revelation of the Magi was not translated from a Latin text. It is translated directly from the Syriac. There is not a Latin text in between. 

The Sages and the Star Child, pg. 69

This composition, which this study calls the  Revelation o f the Magi (henceforth RevMagi), is a lengthy and complex apocryphon that purports to be the personal testimony of the Magi and provides their perspective on the coming of Christ. The text is only extant in Syriac, though a summary of the same basic narrative occurs in the Opus Imperfectum in Matthaeum (henceforth OIM), the aforementioned commentary on the Gospel of Matthew probably composed in the fifth century by an anonymous Arian theologian.

The Sages and the Star Child, pg. 2

The verse Tim cites has the English "salvation" and "my Lord Jesus Christ" because they are translated from different Syriac words. It just goes to show Tim is no linguist and has no idea what he is talking about. He also has this to say about Brent Landau:

For a supposed Bible scholar and linguist to not know that “Jesus Christ” is not the name of our Messiah, and is not proper, is already evidence that he has no right to attempt an interpretation; he has no foundation in understanding. His translation is solid. His interpretation is useless.

pg. 188

Is Tim really unaware that translation is interpretation? To call Landau's translation solid and his interpretation useless is contradictory. He should simply reject Landau and make his own translation. 

Here is some more railing against scholars. 

However, the scoffing academic would then ignorantly claim, “that is simply not enough.” No, it is not, and that is not the end of this narrative. What about these two definitions of prayer and silence? Certainly, neither of those could be of Philippine origin. Scoff! Scoff! Snark! Oops!

pg. 72

Of course, we are supposed to ignore such direct and simple associations and allow the so-called experts to continue to offer obtuse etymologies of these words in ignorance. We will not. Test these for yourself, because you will typically hear “Scoff! Scoff! Snicker!” from a group who lost the Land of Gold, lost the Garden of Eden, and lost the home of the Magi. 

pg. 73

The whole book is interlaced with that kind of nonsense. 

While the entire book has not been covered the salient points have been analyzed. Tim's founding principles are wrong with the nature and time of the journey in the text contradicting him, his interpretation of the text (specifically the names of the Magi and the Land of Shir) are wrong, and his criticism of translator Brent Landau as uneducated is not just wrongheaded but also prideful as Tim pretends to know more than Brent. 

This is simply another awful and worthless book from Timothy Jay Schwab who is The God Culture. There are only two more major points to discuss and those are Tim's etymology of the Greek word Magi which shall be covered in part 3 and the Star of Bethlehem which shall be covered in part 4.