The God Culture: 100 Lies About the Philippines: Lie 16: Duarte Barbosa Places the Lequios in the Philippines

Welcome back to 100 lies The God Culture teaches about the Philippines. Today's lie once again concerns the identification of the Lequios Islands. Timothy Jay Schwab claims that Duarte Barbosa's description of the Lequios Islands is the Philippines. As we shall see this is simply another lie.

In his videos Tim says:

The Lequios of Luzon: Key to Finding Ophir and Chryse. Clue #52 

9:08 Now then, quotes Barbosa. "Facing this great land of China," oh, is Malaysia facing China? No. "There are many islands in the sea beyond which on the other side of the sea there is a very large land which they say is mainland," in other words a large island, "from which there come to Malacca every year three or four ships like those of the Chins." You mean Chinese junks? Right. Exactly. The Philippines is documented by Pigafetta to have several by the way. Now, "belonging to white men," we will explain this, "who are said to be great and rich merchants. They bring much gold and silver in bars, silk rich cloth, and much very good wheat, beautiful porcelains and many other merchandises. All merchandises found in the Philippines.

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

The Search for King Solomon's Treasure, pg. 37

Exploring Malaysia, the Portuguese Duarte Barbosa observed a people known as the “Lequios” or “Lequii” or in some sources, “Lucoes.” This people is later specified even by Pigafetta as originating in the Philippines as we will cover in the history chapter. The Lequios were described as:

“From Malaca they take the same goods as the Chins [Chinese] take. These islands are called Lequios [in one version ‘Liquii’]. The Malaca people say that they are better men, and richer and more eminent merchants than the Chins.” –Duarte Barbosa, 1516 [148]

Nowhere in his book or videos does Tim actually cite from Duarte Barbosa's book. The above quote which looks like it is from Barbosa is actually from Charles E. Nowell's introduction to his book Magellan's Voyage Around the World: Three Contemporary Accounts. 

Something else was on his agenda of discovery, and he thought he knew where to find it. 

That something was the island cluster composed of Formosa and the Ryukyus, the latter known to the Portuguese, who had not yet visited them, as Lequios. Duarte Barbosa, who wrote a geographical account of the countries bordering on the Indian Ocean and those within range of the ocean, has this to say of the Ryukyu inhabitants: 

From Malaca they take the same goods as the Chins [Chinese) take. These islands are called Lequios [in one version ‘Liquii']. The Malaca people say that they are better men, and richer and more eminent merchants than the Chins. Of these folk we as yet know but little, as they have not yet come to Malaca since it has been under the King our Lord.

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.31822013755558&view=1up&seq=34

As you can see from the bolded part Tim cites word for word Nowell's text about Barbosa's description of the Lequios Islands which means he has not read Barbosa's book. That will prove to be his undoing. 

Tim is very adamant that the Lequios cannot be the Ryukyu Islands because the Lequios are not Japanese. 

The Search for King Solomon's Treasure, pg. 163

Some attempt an etymology of the Liu Kiu in the Ryukyu Islands of Japan yet Lequios are not Japanese, these are not Southeast of China and never found there but in the Philippines which boasts a much more direct etymology and several. It is no surprise that the Lequios, Lequii or Lucoes equate to Iloconos of Ilocos.

Of course the Lequios are not Japanese but neither are the Ryukyu Islands Japan! It's all a lying canard. A closer look at the itinerary in Barbosa's book shows that the Lequios Islands cannot be the Philippines, specifically Luzon. 

Starting at the Cape of Good Hope Barbosa describes 127 locations. He ends with the Lequios Islands. Just looking at the itinerary shows it is not possible for the Lequios Islands to be the Philippines. Location 113 is Sumatra.

https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.47303/page/n19/mode/2up

Continuing Eastward 115 is Java Major, 116 is Java Minor, 120 is the Maloucca Islands. That would be the Spice Islands where Magellan was headed. 121 is Celebes and 123 is Solor which is the Sulu Archipelago.

Solor here evidently refers to the Sulu Archipelago and not to the Island of Solor in the Lesser Sunda Islands. The name includes not only the chain of islands between Borneo and Mindanao, but also the north-eastern part of Borneo itself, which still bears the name Sulu. The expression "very large island" can only refer to this tract. The islands were skirted by the Spanish expedition on their way to the Moluccas after leaving Borneo, and are called Zolo by Plgafetta. Colo (i.e. Colo) appears in Ribero's map of 1529. 

124 is Borneo, 125 is Champa which is Vietnam, 126 is China, and finally 127 is the Lequios Islands. See how the progression from Sumatra has gone east and then north? If Barbosa had wanted to describe the Lucoes he would have done that after describing Borneo. But instead he goes from Borneo to Vietnam and then to China. Why would he deviate his course and return south? He would not. The Lequios Islands are not the Philippines. They are the Ryukyu Islands and Formosa also known as Taiwan. His description is as follows:

FACING this great land of China there are many islands In the Sea, beyond which stretch a very great land which they say is the mainland. Hence every year come to Malaca three or four ships like those of the Chins belonging to certain white folk, who they say are great and rich merchants. 

They bring a great quantity of gold, silver in bars, silk and rich cloths, a great deal of good wheat, fine porcelains, and many other goods. From Malaca they take the same goods as the Chins take. [These people are called Liquii. Rinnasio. These islands are called Lequeos. Spanish version.] The Malaca people say that they are better men, and richer and more eminent merchants than the Chins. Of these folk we as yet know but little, as they have not yet come to Malaca since it has been under the King our Lord. 

That last sentence is very important. Barbosa composed his book in 1516 which was a year before the Lequios Islands were visited by the Portuguese in 1517 by Jorge de Mascarenhas with the help of Chinese pilots. He says they had not yet come to Malaca. But Tome Pires, who completed his Summa Oriental in 1515, says the Lucoes were trading in Malaca.

The Lucoes are about ten days' sail beyond Borneo. They are nearly all heathen; they have no king, but they are ruled by groups of elders. They are a robust people, little thought of in Malacca. They have two or three junks, at the most. They take the merchandise to Borneo and from there they come to Malacca.

Pires, pg. 133

The Lequios were not trading in Malaca in 1516 but the Lucoes were. That means they are not the same people. If Tim had done actual research he would have known that fact. 

It is quite simple to follow Barbosa's course from South Africa to China. There is no question that the Lequios Islands are not the Philippines. But Timothy Jay Schwab did not bother to actually read Barbosa or Tome Pires or Ferdinand Pinto. Instead he relies on second hand sources and he gets everything wrong. As I have said before this shoddy research is not the work of a team but is more evidence The God Culture is the work of Timothy Jay Schwab alone. Duarte Barbosa did not identify the Lequios Islands with the Philippines.

The God Culture: The Old Rugged Stake

Having realized that his first video about the cross was inadequate Timothy Jay Schwab who is The God Culture has returned to give his audience a primer on the Greek work stauros.  Like the previous video it is very short running at 16 minutes and is not as in-depth as he thinks.

The Greek Stake: How Did the Greeks Use the Word Stauros in 16 MINUTES

Right away the problem with this video reveals itself in the title: "How did the Greeks use the word Stauros." Tim goes on to cite men who lived long before the Roman Empire such as Homer, Euripides, Thucydides, and Herodtus to prove that the Greeks always used stauros to mean a stake and never a t-shaped cross. But their testimony is not relevant as the REAL question is what Greek word would be used to indicate a Roman execution on a t-shaped cross. 

Tim gets close to answering that question when he cites the testimony of Seneca who was a citizen of the Roman Empire. 

9:48 However, very close to Yahusha's time, about 30 years or so after, very close, 65 AD Seneca the Stoic writes in Latin not Greek but he does something very telling. He lists different instruments of death and here he lists the Roman Crux or cross. Right? Oh but it's separately from a different implement of execution called the stake. A different Latin word pallus. Oops. In the same sentence. These are not the same thing. They are not synonymous as many try to say because because they are not the history is fraud.

This guy never ceases to amaze. Here is the full quote:

Picture to yourself under this head the prison, the cross, the rack, the hook, and the stake which they drive straight through a man until it protrudes from his throat.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Moral_letters_to_Lucilius/Letter_14

First of all Senca is writing in Latin and not Greek as even Tim notes so his testimony should not even be included in a video about a Greek word.

Second of all the stake Sencea writes about is not a pole someone is tied to but one which is thrust through a man's anus and out of his throat! And even Tim says Jesus was not impaled. So this instrument of execution would not even apply to Jesus Christ. Of course there is a difference between being nailed to a t-shaped cross or stake and being impaled. 

Seneca is of no help to us at all. 

Who is of help is Justin Martyr. In the Dialogue with Trypho he writes:

God does not permit the lamb of the passover to be sacrificed in any other place than where His name was named; knowing that the days will come, after the suffering of Christ, when even the place in Jerusalem shall be given over to your enemies, and all the offerings, in short, shall cease; and that lamb which was commanded to be wholly roasted was a symbol of the suffering of the cross which Christ would undergo. For the lamb, which is roasted, is roasted and dressed up in the form of the cross. For one spit is transfixed right through from the lower parts up to the head, and one across the back, to which are attached the legs of the lamb. 

https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.viii.iv.xl.html

The Greek word being translated as cross is "σταυροῦ". Which is the same Greek word translated "cross" in the New Testament. Here is the Greek of Justin:

https://earlywritings.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1874#p41235

The image of the roasted lamb with it being roasted on two sticks, one across the back and the other from the lower parts to the head, is clearly that of a t-shaped cross. To describe a cross Justin used Stauros which can mean pole but in this case clearly does not. 

Tim ends by showing a picture of how Jesus was "staked."

At the stake, at the stake where I first saw the light

Can anyone tell me what is missing from this picture? 

There is NO INSCRIPTION ABOVE HIS HEAD! 

Luke 23:38 And a superscription also was written over him in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS.

John 19:20 And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross. And the writing was, JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS. 

21 This title then read many of the Jews: for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city: and it was written in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin. 

If Jesus was nailed to a stake with his arms above his head and not crucified arms akimbo on a t-shaped cross where would there be room for this writing which was placed on the cross? It would have to have been very large since it was written in three languages whose letters were big enough for everyone to read. 

Once again Timothy Jay Schwab has failed to make any case for Jesus dying on the old Rugged Pole. He asks "How did the Greeks use the word Staruos" when the proper question is what Greek word would be used to describe a Roman crucifixion. 

The testimony of men who did not live under the Roman Empire and witness a crucifixion is irrelevant. Seneca, who makes a difference between crucifixion and impalement, is also no good because he is writing in Latin. But at least we learn from him there is a difference between crucifixion and impalement on a stake. Note that Seneca does not say tied or nailed to a stake but IMPALED on it which absolutely does not apply to Jesus Christ. 

Being that this was another short video there will likely be more on the topic from Timothy Jay Schwab who is The God Culture. 

The God Culture: Jesus Was Not Crucified For Our Sins

It is not enough for Timothy jay Schwab who is The God Culture to deny Jesus Christ fulfilled His work on the cross now he must deny Jesus was even crucified at all. He was actually "staked."

The Cross: The Ancient Symbol of the Occult Sun God in 13 MINUTES

The gist of it is that the Cross is an occult symbol never found in the Bible and the Greek word translated cross does not mean a t-shaped cross but a singular pole or stake. Let's take his claims one at a time.

1. The Cross is an occult symbol of the sun god and was introduced by Constantine.

3:40 They claim the origin of this practice of infusing the sun god symbol into Christianity is Constantine the not so Great around 312 A.D. or so.

This is simply not true. The early church did in fact use the symbol of the cross before Constantine arrived on the scene. Here are three of many testimonies to this fact. 

The first is from Justin Martyr.

God does not permit the lamb of the passover to be sacrificed in any other place than where His name was named; knowing that the days will come, after the suffering of Christ, when even the place in Jerusalem shall be given over to your enemies, and all the offerings, in short, shall cease; and that lamb which was commanded to be wholly roasted was a symbol of the suffering of the cross which Christ would undergo. For the lamb, which is roasted, is roasted and dressed up in the form of the cross. For one spit is transfixed right through from the lower parts up to the head, and one across the back, to which are attached the legs of the lamb. 

https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.viii.iv.xl.html

The second is from Tertullian, a man Tim has misused many times in his videos and books. 

At every forward step and movement, at every going in and out, when we put on our clothes and shoes, when we bathe, when we sit at table, when we light the lamps, on couch, on seat, in all the ordinary actions of daily life, we trace upon the forehead the sign.

https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.iv.vi.iii.html

The sign is, of course, the cross. 

The third is from Minucius Felix. 

Crosses, moreover, we neither worship nor wish for. You, indeed, who consecrate gods of wood, adore wooden crosses perhaps as parts of your gods. For your very standards, as well as your banners; and flags of your camp, what else are they but crosses glided and adorned? Your victorious trophies not only imitate the appearance of a simple cross, but also that of a man affixed to it. We assuredly see the sign of a cross, naturally, in the ship when it is carried along with swelling sails, when it glides forward with expanded oars; and when the military yoke is lifted up, it is the sign of a cross; and when a man adores God with a pure mind, with hands outstretched. Thus the sign of the cross either is sustained by a natural reason, or your own religion is formed with respect to it.

Chapter 29

Minucius says the sign of the cross is seen when a man adores god with his hands outstretched. That is NOT the image of an upright pole but of a t-shaped cross.

2. The Greek word stauros only and always means an upright stake and never a Roman crucifix.

7:03 The Greek word is Stauros for an upright stake not a Roman crucifix which even makes its way into Bible concordances and definitions in fraud and we find that on several topics. It is never cross. No. Even its root word means upright stand as in upright stake not crucifix.

This is where Tim should have gone in depth but chose not to do so. History testifies the Romans did in fact crucify criminals on t-shaped crosses and not only on upright poles. The word can refer to both. 

The Greek-English Lexicon of Liddell and Scott reports that the meaning of the word "σταυρός" in the early Homeric form of Greek, possibly of the eighth to sixth century BC, and also in the writings of the fifth-century BC writers Herodotus and Thucydides and the early-4th century BC Xenophon, is "an upright pale or stake" used to build a palisade or "a pile driven in to serve as a foundation." It reports that in the writings of the first-century BC Diodorus Siculus, first-century AD Plutarch and early second-century Lucian—as well as in Matthew 27:40, Luke 9:23, 14:27—the word "σταυρός" is used to refer to a cross, either as the instrument of crucifixion or metaphorically of voluntary suffering; "its form was indicated by the Greek letter Τ". It also reports that Plutarch used the word with regard to a pale for impaling a corpse. Of the writers whom Liddell and Scott gives as using "σταυρός" to mean a cross, the New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology holds that in Diodorus Siculus the word probably means a stake for hanging. Plutarch (in An vitiositas ad infelicitatem sufficiat) distinguishes crucifixion on a stauros from impalement on a skolops.

Joel B. Green, in The Cambridge Companion to Jesus, says the evidence of the manner of Jesus' death is far more ambiguous than is generally realised. Literary sensibilities in Roman antiquity did not promote graphic descriptions of the act of crucifixion, and even the Gospels report simply, "They crucified him", adding no further detail. According to Green, the Romans were slaves to no standard technique of crucifixion: "In describing the siege of Jerusalem by the Roman army, for example, Josephus reports that 'the soldiers out of rage and hatred amused themselves by nailing their prisoners in different positions' (J.W. 5.449–51). Elsewhere we learn that victims of crucifixion might be fixed to the stake in order to die, or impaled after death as a public display. They might be fixed to the cross with nails or with ropes. That Jesus was nailed to the cross is intimated in several texts (John 20.25; Acts 2.23; Col 2.14; Gos. Pet. 6.21; Justin Dial. 97). Nor can we turn to archaeological evidence for assistance."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrument_of_Jesus%27_crucifixion

The fact is if Tim really wanted to "test all things" he would not have done a shoddy fly-by night piece like this. If the word and subject are worth researching then he should have done that and not given his audience a shallow milquetoast word study which conceals more than it reveals. There are depths to plumb but Tim stays in the kiddie pool. 

3. Jesus was crucified on a tree.

8:57 Peter and Luke in Acts are very clear Yahusha was hung on a tree. Uh, three times here it's translated as tree, not a Roman crucifix symbol of the Sun God. No. His enemy whom they also try to associate him in birth, uh, the exact opposite time of year. Watch "When Was Jesus Born" series. Hmm. Not a coincidence

Paul also quoting the Old Testament refers to this same Greek word saying cursed is every man who hangs on a tree. Now, this is not a Roman crucifix and what he's quoting comes from an ancient precedence before there was ever a Rome. This Greek word also leads us to tree or stake not a Roman crucifix period. in the origin of the words of Galatians we just saw Paul quotes is Deuteronomy 21:22-23 in Hebrew this word tree or upright stake remains and more than 1,000 years before the Roman Empire even existed, uh, well, it's not talking about a Roman crucifix. Duh.

Luke says the following:

Acts 10:39 And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree:

If we take this at face value Jesus was slain and then His body was hung on a tree. Is that what happened? No. He was nailed to a cross and died on it. So, we cannot take this verse literally.

Peter says:

1 Peter 2:24 Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.

The Greek word here can be translated tree, or wood.

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/g3586/kjv/tr/0-1/

Interestingly this word is translated stave five times!

Mat 26:55 In that same hour said Jesus to the multitudes, Are ye come out as against a thief with swords and staves for to take me? I sat daily with you teaching in the temple, and ye laid no hold on me.

What is a stave but a vertical wooden pole or a strong stick used as a weapon?

 

 vertical wooden post or plank in a building or other structure.

a strong wooden stick or iron pole used as a weapon.

This is the same instrument on which Tim is claiming Jesus died. So why isn't the word translated stave in Acts or Peter? Because they are being metaphorical. Obviously Jesus did not die on a literal tree. Nor did he die on a stick. He died on a t-shaped cross. 

That brings us to Paul who say in Galatians:

Gal 3:13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:

This is a citation from Deuteronomy.

Deut 21:22 And if a man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he be to be put to death, and thou hang him on a tree:

23: His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day; (for he that is hanged is accursed of God;) that thy land be not defiled,which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.

The word translated tree can mean many things but it is most translated tree 162 times. 

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/h6086/kjv/wlc/0-1/

Joshua hangs the king of Ai upon a tree. 

Jos 8:29 And the king of Ai he hanged on a tree until eventide:and as soon as the sun was down, Joshua commanded that they should take his carcase down from the tree, and cast it at the entering of the gate of the city, and raise thereon a great heap of stones, that remaineth unto this day.

Unless the Israelites built a gallows, as this word is translated in Esther, it is safe to assume that they hanged him on an actual tree. 

But was Jesus hung on an actual tree? Did the Romans slay him and then hang his body upon a tree as Luke writes? It is patently obvious that the Romans did not crucify people on trees. There is no historical record of the Romans nailing people to literal trees. Tree is metaphorical for the wood of the cross. Of course Tim says otherwise and thinks Jesus was nailed to a literal tree.

The God Culture: "Cross" is only a representation in English erroneously and has never been proven to even be an accurate symbol but most certainly has very ancient occult roots as a symbol of the sun god. One would think scholars and Bible translators over the years would not be so stupid as to insert such an occult symbol when it is not there. They should have steered far away from it unless it was a 100% connection. In this case, it 0% in connection and this reveals an infusion of the occult into the Bible which is disgusting. In Greek, it is not a cross either time and derives from the Old Testament use quoted by Paul as we cover of a far more ancient execution style documented by Moses even. Yahusha was far more likely placed on a stake or pole of sort or the best representation is nailed to a tree itself as Paul, Luke and Peter affirm. Yah Bless.

Again, if Tim wanted to go in depth about what it means for Jesus to have been hung on a tree he could have done so but he did not, so let's move on. 

4. Christians do not use symbols.

:37 Well, if one wears a cross around their neck they are, well not representing Messiah. It's not His symbol. Exactly. Uh, he has no symbols. The Bible doesn't have it. That is not a Bible practice it is the occult which relies very heavily on their magic talisman and symbols.

10:36  When Constantine the worshipper of the son God, who was no Christian until his deathbed, which is impertinent, infused his Persian religion into what they call Christianity and he made it a state religion even. This is entirely contrived and a clear attempt to instill the occult into our churches where they even display this ancient occult symbol very prominently. Uh, never even used by the early ecclesias nor the Bible at all. They didn't use symbols. The Bible doesn't need them.

Christians don't use symbols? The Bible doesn't use symbols? Messiah has no symbols? What does Tim think the bread and wine used in communion are if not symbols of the body and blood of Jesus Christ? What does he think all the sacrifices in the Old Testament are if not symbols of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ? 

As for the symbol of the cross I already cited three early Christians who testify to the use of the t-shaped cross long before Constantine. Are we to suppose they who lived in the Roman Empire were ignorant of what it meant for Jesus to be crucified? Why do they not refer to the stake or pole if Jesus was in fact nailed to a stake or pole and not a t-shaped cross?

Did you know the cross does show up in the Old Testament? 

Exodus 17:9 And Moses said unto Joshua, Choose us out men, and go out, fight with Amalek: to morrow I will stand on the top of the hill with the rod of God in mine hand.

10 So Joshua did as Moses had said to him, and fought with Amalek: and Moses, Aaron, and Hur went up to the top of the hill.

11 And it came to pass, when Moses held up his hand, that Israel prevailed: and when he let down his hand, Amalek prevailed.

12 But Moses' hands were heavy; and they took a stone, and put it under him, and he sat thereon; and Aaron and Hur stayed up his hands, the one on the one side, and the other on the other side; and his hands were steady until the going down of the sun.

It looks like this:

Moses delivered the people with this sign. As long as he made the sign of the cross there was victory but as soon as he let down his hands there was defeat. Likewise the Cross of Jesus Christ, which Moses typifies in this passage, defeats death, hell, and the devil. We have victory in Him through his sign. 

The cross shows up again in the book of Numbers.

Numbers 21:8 And the LORD said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live.

9 And Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a pole, and it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived.

Jesus refers to this event as a type of his crucifixion. 

John 3:14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:

15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

How was Jesus lifted up? On a t-shaped cross. The early church testifies to this and the Bible certainly does not contradict that fact despite the ambiguity of the word stauros.

Again, these two instances in the Old Testament are missed opportunities for Tim who thinks 13 minutes is enough for this topic. Since he wants to call the cross an occult symbol what is the deal with 13 minutes? Why did it have to be that number which is rather occult and not in a good way?

Given how prone Tim is to making hour-long, multi-part series on various topics it is kind of odd that he would devote a scant 13 minutes to a topic which many actual Bible scholars have devoted considerable time. Taking a look at the Greek word, its usage in literature besides the Bible, and commentaries upon it, it is clear that "stauros" is a bit ambiguous and can indeed mean a simple stake or a t-shaped cross. Likewise the word translated tree can mean many things besides an actual tree. It all depends on the context. 

Then there are the two references to a cross in the Old Testament. Granted the description of the pole made by Moses does not say it is a t-shaped cross but given that it is a symbol of Christ why should we think otherwise? What better way to drape a serpent on a pole than by adding a crossbeam to make a t-shape? But Tim does not investigate any of that. Instead he delivers a 13 minute hit piece which doesn't tell us anything at all that could be considered authoritative or final.

So, there it is folks. According to Timothy Jay Schwab of The God Culture not only did Jesus Christ not finish His work on the Cross but he did not even die on the Cross for our sins. 

The God Culture: 100 Lies About the Philippines: Lie 15: Magellan Thought the Philippines Was Ophir and the Lequios Islands

Welcome back to 100 lies The God Culture teaches about the Philippines. Today's lie once again concerns the identification of the Lequios Islands. Timothy Jay Schwab claims that Ferdinand Magellan thought the Philippines were both the Lequios Islands and Ophir. But as with all of his other claims we shall see this is a lie. 

This lie is based on a single sentence in Charles Nowell's introduction to his book Magellan's Voyage Around the World: Three Contemporary Accounts.

The Lequios of Luzon: Key to Finding Ophir and Chryse. Clue #52 

12:44 Now continues. This is the key. Magellan's version substitutes for Barbosa's Lequios, Lucoes, the words Tarsis and Ofir. The biblical Tarshish and Ophir associated with Solomon. This is from Barbosa's journal while in Malaysia. While there Magellin found out where Ophir was and it was not Malaysia. There is no overcoming this for any land and there is no debate, period. Magellan found Ophir. Done

The conclusion here, that Magellan found Ophir and Tarshish because he subsititued those names for Lequios, and it is Lequios not Lucoes, absolutely does not follow. Let us not forget that Columbus thought he found Japan. It should also not be forgotten from the previous articles that the Lequios Islands are not the Philippines. Tome Pires differentiates between the Lucoes and Lequios islands.  Ferdinand Pinto was shipwrecked in the Lequios Islands and located them at 29 North Latitude. Magellan died in the Philippines and his ships never made it north to the Lequios Islands. So, everything Tim has just said is proven by those few facts to be a complete and total fabrication.

Nevertheless it will be necessary to dig a little deeper on this matter which is why this subject of the Lequios Islands has covered several articles. Tim writes the following in his book The Search for King Solomon's Treasure:

The Search for King Solomon's Treasure, pg. 37

Magellan, who also explored under Portugal in Malaysia before embarking on his voyage to return to Southeast Asia for the Spanish crown, is recorded by author Charles E. Nowell as rewriting a portion of his copy of Barbosa’s journal. In regards to the inhabitants of the Philippines, the Lequios, he substitutes “Tarsis” and “Ofir” or Tarshish and Ophir. He knew where he was headed and he knew Malaysia did not meet the criteria for Ophir or Chryse though close in proximity, it was East of the Malay Peninsula which he found in the Philippines.

“Magellan’s version substitutes for Barbosa’s “Lequios” the words “Tarsis” and “Ofir” “...the Biblical Tarshish and Ophir associated with Solomon...” – Charles E. Nowell [148]

Nowell's source for this information is an article in the Bulletin de la Societé Belge de Geographie from 1907. Let's take a look at exactly what this article says. I have translated it from the French. 

https://books.google.com.ph/books?id=gS4yAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA435&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=2#v=onepage&q&f=false

Barbosa's report, written before 1516, summarizes the knowledge acquired at this time in Portugal, about India and Oceania; the author is led there to speak of the Lequios, at the end of his description of the South Asian kingdoms and islands, a description all the more precious as it comes from an intelligent traveler, who has actually visited most of the places he cited; wanting to end this general overview with some information on the countries not yet discovered, he could not help reproducing certain half-fantastic, half-authentic notions which circulated at that time about the countries and archipelagos of the Ptolemaic Magnus Sinus.

Barbosa's book summarizes all the knowledge the Portuguese had about the East and ends with a description of the Lequios Islands. It should be noted this book was written before the Lequios Islands were discovered by the Portuguese in 1517 so the knowledge Barbosa had of them was based on hearsay. I will discuss this book in a future article. 

In the General Archive of the Indies in Seville, we found in a bundle of the Patronato which contains one of the rare documents from the hand of Magellan, from the year 1519, a document which has the title "List of places, islands and main ports from the Cape of Good Hope to the Lequios, which are not yet discovered, besides other information that we have in Portugal."

We did not find the author's name; on the back of the parchment we find with difficulty deciphering a few words (et no hic unum homum aassim in quo?) which vaguely recall Magellan's firm declaration at the end of the other piece "no one knows these geographical situations (of South America South and East Asia) as well as me!." The address is better read "Muy magn' Senior, por mandao suo— A suy Senora"; it seems to indicate that the piece was presented to the young king Charles, the future Charles 5th, through the intermediary of the president of the consul of the Indies, the bishop of Burgos, Juan de Fonseca, whose characteristic title was: "Su Senior.”

The author of the archive inventory assigns the document the date of 1520-1530, without examining whether there could be any direct relationship between the different pieces contained in the bundle, among others with the Magellan manuscript. Now, the anonymous memoir is nothing more than a fragment of the book of Oduarte Barbosa, relating to the Far East. The arrangement that the author has adopted in his description differs slightly from that which we have given above according to the edition of the "Book published by the Academy of Sciences of Lisbon:

Sumatra, Cumda. Java major, Java minor, Timor, Vandam, Meluq, China, Tarsis, Ofir.

The author of this article says they found an ANONYMOUS document amongst a bundle of other documents attributed to Magellan. The author of this article does not know for sure if the documents belonged to Magellan and he himself actually substituted Tarsis and Ofir for Lequios. However he believes that is a logical assumption.

From the fact that the manuscript is joined to the remarkable document of Magellan, it seems to us that we can draw the conclusion that the navigator presented to the king the rectified report of his friend Barbosa, the day before his departure for the Moluccas, accompanying it with the formal declaration relative to the astronomical determination of several points of the globe, of which the right of taking possession by Portugal had been disputed by Spain.

But take a look at the progression of lands. We start in Sumatra, pass Java, reach China, and then arrive at the Lequios islands. There is no possible way that is the Philippines when the whole progression goes north. This will be made abundantly clear when I discuss Barbosa's book.

Further on the author of this article writes:

It took more than half a century to see a non-Portuguese geographer, our Mercator, mark on a printed work the discovery of the Lequios in the year 1517. Barbosa and Magellan may very well have been informed of the results of the Perestrello's trip, but they probably ignored the details of Mascarenhas' expedition.

Mercator's 1569 map shows both the Lequios Islands and the Philippines.

https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b7200344k/f9.item.zoom

 

See how the Lequios Islands are located near Japan? That's because, as the author of this article writes:

The greater number of geographers, following Pigafetta, ignored the islands of the Lequios, and only understood under this name the inhabitants of a part of the coast of China

The Lequios Islands were not unknown to the Portuguese who first encountered them in 1517 with the help of the Chinese. 

It was not until the second half of the sixteenth century that the configuration of these islands began to be defined, thanks to a better knowledge of the Lusitanian cartography of eastern Asia; Portugal had therefore succeeded in keeping secret the results of its discoveries, accomplished since 1517, the year in which the Lequios had been recognized by Jorge de Mascarenhas with the help of Chinese pilots;

Given all that information there is absolutely no way Magellan could have thought that the Philippines was the Lequios Islands. From Barbosa's account he would have known beyond doubt that the Lequios Islands lay to the north between China and Japan. 

As for Barbosa and Magellan identifying the Lequios Islands with Ophir and Tarshish the author of this article discusses at length the search for Ophir and concludes:

The confusion of Ophir with the Lequios islands, by Barbosa and Magellan, constitutes only one more episode in the long series of hypotheses, concerning the existence of the country of gold of the Bible, hypotheses based on rumors more or less waves of unknown lands. 

It was just another hypothesis based on rumor. It's unsurprising that Timothy Jay Schwab did not seek out this article and quote from it to make his case because, as we have seen, he is a very poor researcher. The fact is no one in the 1500's or today knows the location of Ophir. India and the Malaysian Peninsula are the likely candidates as ancient Greek and Roman knowledge of the world went no further than the Malaysian Peninsula. As for Magellan's substituting Tarsis and Ofir for Lequios, we have seen that is based not on fact but a logical guess rather than hard and definitive documentation. Based on all available information Magellan also would have known that the Lequios Islands were much further to the north than the Philippines. So all in all it's simply a lie that Magellan thought the Philippines were the Lequios Islands as well as Ophir. 

The God Culture: Unlocking Hidden Truths With Zen Garcia

Timothy Jay Schwab who is the God Culture, as of this writing no concrete evidence for a God Culture team has surfaced, has given another interview with Zen Garcia. Let's see what Tim has to say to defend his false teachings. 

Unlocking Hidden Truths with The God Culture - Zen Garcia & Tim Schwab

The title alone is enough to indicate that everything about to follow is going to be pure bunk. There are no "hidden truths" when it comes to the Scriptures or the truth of Christianity. Jesus Christ has come and all things have been revealed. The mystery of the ages finds it revelation in Him. To say otherwise is to make Christ a liar who promised He would build His Church and the gates of hell would not overcome it and that He would send the Holy Spirit who would guide the Church into all truth. The title of this video is a rejection of the promises of Jesus Christ and of the guidance by the Holy Spirt of his Body the Church. 

We see this rejection in the main subject of this interview which is Tim's Levite Bible project. From the description:

Embark on a groundbreaking journey with author Zen Garcia and cohost Tim from The God Culture as we unveil the Levite Bible Series, a revolutionary exploration that challenges established paradigms and sheds light on the biblical treasures hidden in the sands of Qumran.

The gist of it is that modern Bibles are corrupt and Tim is going to restore the Bible based on the Dead Sea Scrolls. However Tim does not talk about that project specifically until the end of the video.

1:51:17 We have ten books published now in the last three years uh and we're just just getting started. We have got a lot more to test. We're testing all of the Dead Sea Scrolls, uh, we're not just taking them at face value just because, uh, the temple priests lived in Qumran and that's where Bible Cannon was kept because something could be thrown in so we need to test everyone but we are so the legitimacy of this when we do publish a Levite Bible because this what this is uh with all of these texts in one it it will be credible um and then we're going to move to eventually we'd love to tackle publishing a full Bible with all of these texts in proper chronological order uh with Hebrew yeah with Hebrew keywords in the margins and all of that it just it it so begs it we need it in this day and age because so many things in our King James uh and other versions the other versions are even worse uh they're just not accurate.

Note that Tim makes a distinction between "a Levite Bible" and "a full Bible." That likely means the Levite Bible will be only the Old Testament. This project is called the Levite Bible because the Levites, specifically those tasked with carrying the Ark of the Covenant, were the custodians of Bible Canon. 

49:55 So, how do you determine Bible Cannon? Who kept it? Who were the custodians of Bible Canon? Well, Moses determined that, uh, and he said that, you know, after he was done writing Torah he gave it to who? To the Levites, to the priests and which priests specifically?The priests who bore the Ark of the Covenant and that, you know, is where they placed it. Uh, they were the custodians of scriptures says the Bible.

Tim bases this claim on Deuteronomy 31.

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

It is a wildly ridiculous claim seeing as the point of the Book of the Law being placed inside the Ark of the Covenant was purely symbolic being placed alongside Aaron's rod and a piece of manna. It's not as if that were the only copy and the Levites would not be opening the Ark to take out the law and read. In fact God told the entire nation to write these statutes on their foreheads and right arms. 

Deuteronomy 6:6 And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart:

7 And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up.

8 And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes.

9 And thou shalt write them upon the posts of thy house, and on thy gates.

Paul says quite plainly that the oracles of God were entrusted to the Jews meaning the entire nation of Israel and not just a subgroup of the Levites. 

Romans 3:1 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?

2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God

This claim that only a subgroup of the Levites are the custodians of scripture is an integral part of Tim's system. This means the history of the Septuagint is really Pharisee propaganda since there were no members of this group on the translation team and none of the other tribes were responsible for translating Scripture. 

53:22 Now, the Septuagint though has this fake story that is made up uh actually way back in the first century uh it's from a letter, letter to, uh, Atrayus or something like that, uh, and basically it makes the claim that six of each of the 12 tribes of Israel were sent to Alexandria, to the occult Library of Alexandria, to work for them, to be employed by them, to translate the Hebrew Bible into Greek. Old Testament. Now, there's one big major massive problem with that. The tribe of Judah, the tribe of Ephraim, the tribes of Israel are not translators. They are not responsible for scripture. There's only one tribe that is the Levites. That's it. So, if the story were true and had any basis in reality, and it doesn't we've vetted it completely in a full video which you see on screen. Um can you see my screen Zen? 

Yes, uhuh.

Oh good so that'll share that's good. 

Oh, um Justin has been live streaming it but um yeah we he, he is live streaming it as well. 

Okay cool that's cool yeah that's just for the live stream folks but uh so if anybody isn't watching this you know on the live stream uh you could check it out there uh we we have the support. I'm about to show you some maps and so you'll see them uh on screen. So we, we exposed this as a fake Pharisee history uh this story is contrived it's made up it doesn't mean that the Septuagint is false no it's it's actually a pretty good Greek translation the Septuagint is fine.

Newsflash to Tim but nobody takes the legend of the Septuagint literally. It is indeed a fantastical story and likely not true at all except in the kernel which is that Israelites translated the Torah into Greek for Ptolemy. He is giving us nothing new here except for his reasoning which is that those who translated it were not responsible for Scripture. How is the Septuagint a fine translation if, according to Tim, those who "are not translators they are not responsible for scripture" are the ones who translated it? Tim does not say. He rejects the history of the Septuagint but embraces the translation because he can use it for his nefarious purposes. 

Tim also claims that way out in the desert temple sacrifices were ongoing by the Qumran Community. 

1:07:45 So, they call it the Dead Sea Scrolls. The reality is it's the Bethabara Scrolls. They are found in Bethabara and this was a community where the temple priests lived and continued the temple rituals, the temple sacrifices, all of that continued in this community. Just read their writings and it's very clear they were all about the law they were all about Covenant. They were all about keeping the Commandments and teaching it.

Again Tim, the self-proclaimed expert on the Dead Sea Scrolls who claims he has done more research than anyone else especially scholars, is wrong. There were NO sacrifices taking place in Qumran. The community itself was the sacrifice. Sacrifices were spiritualized. In his introduction to the Complete Dead Sea Scrolls Geza Vermes writes the following:

The second issue has to do with the sect’s attitude towards the Temple and Temple sacrifice. While some Essenes, notwithstanding their vow of total fidelity to the Law of Moses, rejected the validity of the Sanctuary and refused to participate (temporarily) in its rites (cf. Philo, Omnis probus 75; Josephus, Antiquities XVIII, 19), they evaded the theological dilemma in which this stand might have placed them by contending that until the rededication of the Temple, the only true worship of God was to be offered in their establishment. The Council of the Community was to be the ‘Most Holy Dwelling for Aaron’ where, ‘without the flesh of holocausts and the fat of sacrifice‘, a ‘sweet fragrance’ was to be sent up to God, and where prayer was to serve ‘as an acceptable fragrance of righteousness’ (IQS VIII, 8-9; IX, 4-5). The Community itself was to be the sacrifice offered to God in atonement for Israel’s sins (IQS VIII, 4-5; 4Q265 fr. 7 ii).

The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls, Gaza Vermes, pg. 83

The Community Rule says:

In the Council of the Community there shall be twelve men and three Priests, perfectly versed in all that is revealed of the Law, whose works shall be truth, righteousness, justice, loving-kindness and humility. They shall preserve the faith in the Land with steadfastness and meekness and shall atone for sin by the practice of justice and by suffering the sorrows of affliction.

Vermes, pg. 108-109 

When these become members of the Community in Israel according to all these rules, they shall establish the spirit of holiness according to everlasting truth. They shall atone for guilty rebellion and for sins of unfaithfulness, that they may obtain loving-kindness for the Land without the flesh of holocausts and the fat of sacrifice. And prayer rightly offered shall be as an acceptable fragrance of righteousness, and perfection of way as a delectable free-will offering.

Vermes, pg 110

The second citation is more than plain that no animal scarifices were happening in the Qumran Community. 

How could Tim get this so wrong? It's because he is blinded by his own false paradigm. He has magnified the Qumran Community into something it is not. According to Tim they did not abscond to the wilderness merely because the temple was defiled but also to prepare the way for Christ. 

1:31:48 There's another Prophecy in the Community Rule, uh, and it says when these become members of the community in Israel according to all these rules they shall separate from the habitation of unjust men and shall go into the Wilderness to do what? What are they doing?They're fulfilling Isaiah uh 50 verse 3 or no 40 verse 3 okay so they shall go into the Wilderness to prepare there the way of him as it is written prepare in the wilderness the way of blah blah blah blah make straight in the desert a path for our Elohim.

The fulfillment of that prophecy falls squarely on the shoulders of John the Baptist. The Gospels are clear on that. It was not a community preparing the way for Jesus, it was his cousin John the Baptist. It is the voice of ONE calling not the voice of a community calling out. Again, he gets everything wrong because of his false notions about the Qumran Community. 

Tim takes it a step further and claims that Jesus was not baptized at the temple in Jerusalem because the real temple practice was taking place near the Dead Sea. 

1:42:38 Genesis 10 actually puts these together as a people group and they're the same people group that attacked the temple in 165 BC and took over the whole paradigm which is why, notice this, Yahusha did not launch his ministry at the temple. Now that's weird. Why, why wouldn't he have John the Baptist baptize him there? Why did he start his ministry in Bethabara? Because that is where the temple practice remained. That's where the canon was kept and that's what we have to follow through history.

Why exactly would Jesus need to be baptized in the temple? Tim does not say. Where exactly would John have baptized Jesus in the temple? Remember thousands of people were flocking to him in the wilderness. Where would he have gotten all that water? And what is meant by "launching his ministry?" Tim seems to think that entails baptism only but Jesus did not even begin to preach until after his 40 days of temptation in Capernaum which is not Bethabara!

Matthew 4:13 And leaving Nazareth, he came and dwelt in Capernaum, which is upon the sea coast, in the borders of Zabulon and Nephthalim: 

14 That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, 

15 The land of Zabulon, and the land of Nephthalim, by the way of the sea, beyond Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles; 

16 The people which sat in darkness saw great light; and to them which sat in the region and shadow of death light is sprung up. 

17 From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

It is amazing how this man who has been in the ministry for 30 years continually gets EVERYTHING wrong! 

The truth is at no time in his ministry does Jesus ever call the temple priests impostors or the temple ceremonies corrupt or instruct people to go into the wilderness in order to participate in true temple worship. In fact he tells people he heals to go offer the proper sacrifices at the temple. 

Luke 5:12 And it came to pass, when he was in a certain city, behold a man full of leprosy: who seeing Jesus fell on his face, and besought him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean. 

13 And he put forth his hand, and touched him, saying, I will: be thou clean. And immediately the leprosy departed from him

14 And he charged him to tell no man: but go, and shew thyself to the priest, and offer for thy cleansing, according as Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.

Lest Tim cavil that this verse does not say go to the temple I ask where else were they going to show themselves to a priest and offer up a sacrifice?  Not into the wilderness of the Qumran Community who were not sacrificing that's for sure. 

One final thing to note in this interview is that Tim says point blank Jesus did not finish his work on the cross. 

33:12 There's only one day of judgment and that's when all souls are judged. All of them. Billions. Uh, Messiah's greatest work is to come. Uh, the cross was wonderful and very significant no doubt but he did not complete his work on the cross and no scripture actually says he does. That comes out of our pulpits but actually his greatest works are to come.

What a lot of nonsense. Jesus himself said IT IS FINISHED.

John 19:30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost

God incarnated as a man, kept and fulfilled the law, and defeated sin, hell, death, and the devil. There is nothing more for him to do. To say the last judgement has not come therefore "he did not complete his work on the cross" is unbiblical and blasphemous. 

This interview is a lot of the same stuff Tim says elsewhere but compacted into two hours. It's really not much of an interview though as Zen rarely interrupts Tim to ask pertinent questions or put him on the spot by asking anything challenging. But then again Zen Garcia is mostly ideologically aligned with Tim so why would he do that? 

Let's conclude by taking a look at some of the comments. First up is this doozy:

@RestoringReality: Tim is soo proud of being soo wrong about soo many things that I had to drop his channel because I just couldn't stomach the arrogance and insults any longer.

Funny that Tim had no response to this commenter.

However, he did have a response for the next one. 

@fartnoisesloud: Tim’s channel is clear that he loves to ban people, threaten to ban people, accuse everyone of being illiterate and also like to ban people. Other than that he’s quite charming

@TheGodCulture: Your fart noises are far more offensive than a YouTube Channel that actually moderates it's comments which is called responsible. Their giving you a warning so you understand when you are banned. You however, are not a real commenter nor viewer. You are an illiterate, because you prove you can't read, who deserves far worse including prison for your law breaking offense, TGC addresses this exact kind of stupid many Tims because you are exactly that. 

Tim deleted this comment but did leave a reply to the person claiming he was "ranting about us flat earthers."

@sarafenton9288  You are a liar. Anyone who has actually watched TGC, knows we do not rant against Flat Earthers. They are welcome in our format and anyone watching our Restoring Creation Series knows we do not teach a ball earth cosmology. Of course, let us not pretend we do not know this fake account is another by the same illiterate blogger who is too poor to pay attention. So obvious.

Ah, there it is! Tim assumes both of these accounts, @fartnoisesloud and @sarafenton9288, are mine. He added the following comment a few days later. 

@timlandegent3536 Indeed, we love, or is it like, to ban people with a username "fart noises loud." Clearly a fallacious agitator and not a serious commenter on anything vomiting on screen to attempt to place stumbling blocks in the way of viewers. Understand this is the same guy or group who came in under different usernames they make up such as the one above, now removed, which created the username the day before his comment as if we do not all know what that is. This name is a joke to ever be taken seriously. A clear liar. They do it on our book reviews even illegally and in fraud, on our channel regularly and even write the dumbest blogs one could ever read telling you a sentence doesn't say what it clearly says for those who can read of course, a map they don't know how to read doesn't point to what a child can recognize, a book with 1,000 scriptures doesn't have enough Biblical evidence, the land with the most gold in all of history somehow does not have enough gold, and one of our favorites is their admission they read only the eBook of our first book and they accused Amazon, who prints the book, of poor quality that pages fell out when it was delivered except it was an eBook, duh!, etc.They simply don't care how stupid they look as they are anonymous and paid to agitate in any way they can. Losers. Yah Bless.

As I have pointed out before Tim is very, very paranoid about this blog. I don't have a myriad of sock accounts and the comment I posted on this interview was never posted which means I have been banned from that channel from the get-go probably on Tim's advice to Zen. But it is good to see I am not the only one who recognizes Tim is an incredibly rude liar. 

This next comment is probably typical of how many of Tim's viewers think about criticism of The God Culture.

@alx42013 Tim is phenomenal and just by all the fake backlash and stupid fraudulent remarks and false things you see on Google and YouTube,that are trying to soil his name ,his biblical facts,awesome research and deep studies and remarkable work, proves that Satan and the wicked woke powers that be, they're trying to silence him and soil or delegitimize the word of God and his Unbreakable research and studies . For me... that just totally legitimizes and cements him as one of the number one teachers deciphers and smart researchers of this era, and I will continue to support,learn and back his work and promote and show all my friends and family all his awesome discoveries and points of scripture

Following this person's logic, being met with opposition means someone is actually in the right, one would have to conclude that the Pharisees were right and Jesus was wrong and that every false prophet who had his critics, from Joseph Smith to William Branham, was actually on the side of truth. That is, of course, quite ridiculous. Being opposed does not mean one is in the right. 

There is simply no winning with these people. How can anyone hope to make them see Tim's lies when they are thoroughly steeped in ignorance? Given how uncritical is audience is it is no wonder that Timothy Jay Schwab who is The God Culture has a channel that continues to grow.