In this article I want to take a look at some of the odd stuff in The God Culture's sourcebook which accompanies "The Search for King Solomon's Treasure." One would think this book would be rather straightforward. It's purpose is to show their sources. Now one does not have to scour the internet for PDF's or run to the library. Instead you just look up the source in the sourcebook and see their proof. Most entries have a link to the source. But with all things concerning The God Culture there is more than meets the eye. If this group were Transformers they would be Decepticons.
Follow Our Research In Detail In Our
SOURCEBOOK
Over 400 Sources That Prove
The Philippines Is Ophir & the Garden of Eden
In Addition to the Bible and Extra-Biblical Books
As I wrote above the premise is very straightforward. Timothy Jay Schwab is laying all his cards on the table for everyone to see. With this hand he has finally and indisputably proven the Philippines is Ophir and the Garden of Eden. No one can disprove him.
Everyone should at least be mindful this is a very credible case with full support which is why no one has been able to disprove it.
But hold on a minute there's some writing on these cards! Tim has turned a Jack into a King. The King has turned into an Ace! What's going on here? What I'm saying is Tim adds his own little commentaries to some of these sources so that now they don't contradict him. Let's look at a few of these instances.
 |
| page 20 |
NOTE: Perfect example of British manipulations to this narrative: This Periplus quoted by Suarez is deceptively incomplete omitting important directions. We do not use Suarez in his misrepresentation of part of the directions to Chryse provided by the Periplus of the Erythaean Sea which we instead quote directly. We use his misrepresentation of Mela as an example of such. He totally misrepresented this by removing parts of the 2nd half of the directions which indicate it is the island beyond China and to the Southeast of China in the sea. That cannot be Malaysia but only the Philippines fits. He does so to force the Malay Peninsula into the equation which requires deliberate British fraud. See Next Page for Mela's actual words translated and the following page for the actual Periplus with full directions you will not find with this author. How any author could offer the Periplus and leave out the portion within "After this region under the very north, the sea outside ending in a land called This." [China] can only be fraud. Let's be clear.
There is a blogger attempting to capitalize on this fraud by further advancing it and additional fraud of such also ignoring the actual Periplus wording and going right to authors like this who are clearly deceiving and not attempting to represent the truth.
Suarez then misinterprets Mela above who located Chryse and Argyre as islands in the South China Sea not the Malay Peninsula, misrepresents the Periplus completely and then, goes on to claim Pliny the Elder and geographer was confused about whether Chryse was an island or a Peninsula thus it must be a Peninsula yet Pliny calls it an island every time. He seizes on directions where Pliny involves 3 rivers in China, a bay and the "Promontory of Chryse." Again, Pliny was a geographer. He knew the difference between an isle and a peninsula. He also knew the word promontory refers to a rocky point and islands can have promontories just as much as peninsulas. Yes the word can be a peninsula but not when the same author calls it an island many times and a promontory only this once which is also a description found on an island. That's deception not scholarship. However, he fraudulently deals with such and concludes Pliny must have meant peninsula. To make such assumption requires one to believe Pliny did not know the difference and was confused yet his writings are very clear and he was a geographer. This is propaganda.
In this commentary Timothy is calling Thomas Suarez, the author of early Mapping of Southeast Asia, a fraud and a propagandist. He even takes time to mention me! I think he is referring to my article, The God Culture: Finding Chryse: Don't Follow Biased Paradigms. Why is the man who wrote the authoritative book on early maps of Southeast Asia a fraud? Tim says it's because he omits the 2nd half of the directions to Chryse. Here is the full text.
63. After these, the course turns toward the east again, and sailing with the ocean to the right and the shore remaining beyond to the left, Ganges comes into view, and near it the very last land toward the east, Chryse. There is a river near it called the Ganges, and it rises and falls in the same way as the Nile. On its bank is a market-town which has the same name as the river, Ganges. Through this place are brought malabathrum and Gangetic spikenard and pearls, and muslins of the finest sorts, which are called Gangetic. It is said that there are gold-mines near these places, and there is a gold coin which is called caltis. And just opposite this river there is an island in the ocean, the last part of the inhabited world toward the east, under the rising sun itself; it is called Chryse; and it has the best tortoise-shell of all the places on the Erythraean Sea.
64. After this region under the very north, the sea outside ending in a land called This, there is a very great inland city called Thinae [i.e. China], from which raw silk and silk yarn and silk cloth are brought on foot through Bactria to Barygaza, and are also exported to Damirica [=Limyrike] by way of the river Ganges. But the land of This is not easy of access; few men come from there, and seldom. The country lies under the Lesser Bear [Ursa Minor], and is said to border on the farthest parts of Pontus and the Caspian Sea, next to which lies Lake Maeotis; all of which empty into the ocean.
https://depts.washington.edu/silkroad/texts/periplus/periplus.html
Paragraph 63 describes the land of Chryse. Paragraph 64 says "after this region" is China. Understand the directions are moving eastward. From Chryse we go east to China. Is China to the east of the Philippines? No. So Tim is wrong in his interpretation of this text. He is also wrong about Suarez. He does not ignore paragraph 64 as Tim alleges. Here is what Suarez writes.
Chryse most likely represented Malaya, while Argyre was probably Burma, perhaps Arakan. Both are seen as islands in the world map after Mela (fig. 9), Chryse being the island off the east Asian coast, and Argyre the island at the Ganges delta next to Taprobana. On the twelfth-century 'Turin' world map (figs. 30 & 31), they appear as a single island in the easternmost ocean sea, the right-hand isle of the two immediately above Adam and Eve (the left-hand isle is simply designated insula, and thus may have been intended for either Chryse or Argyre).
Mention of Chryse is also made in the Periplus of the Erythrean Sea, which describes Chryse as "the last part of the inhabited world toward the east, under the rising sun itself, " a land from which comes "the best tortoise-shell of all the places on the Erythrean Sea." The work's anonymous author then described the land of This (China) and city of Thinae, from which raw silk, silk yarn, and silk cloth, acquired through silent barter, were brought overland to India. Isidorus Hispalensis (Isidore of Seville, ca. 560-636 A.D.), in his Etymologiae, one of the most popular cosmographies of the Middle Ages, also placed the lands of Chryse and Argyre in the southeastern extreme of the world, along with Taprobana and Tyle (Tile, an island near India).
Suarez says Chryse is mentioned in the Periplus of the Erythean Sea. After that place is described Suarez says the author moves on to describe China. Again we are going east and China is not east of the Philippines. Tim does not agree wth Suarez so he calls him a fraud and misrepresents his book.
I'm not going to bother to refute him on Mela and Pliny. The fact that Pliny, Mela, and everyone else has different directions and descriptions for Chryse as being both an island and a peninsula should alert Tim to the fact that Greeks were unfamiliar with this region and never sailed there for gold.
There are two places in the sourcebook where Tim mentions the Rothschilds. The first one is located on page 35.
This search tells us that there is a huge paragraph on page 35. But there isn't. Instead the text is hidden!
Why does Tim have hidden text in his sourcebook? Doesn't he want his readers to be informed about everything he has to say? If you look at the coding it hardly seems unintentional especially considering the hidden text he has on all his other webpages. As far as I can gather the text reads as follows:
’s have funded the suppression of Ophir since the 1600s when they paid Purchas to commit their … propaganda. The Malay Peninsula was never an island and no sailor nor cartographer in those days could possibly confuse the two unless they operate in a … completely broken paradigm such as Ptolemy regarding the Far East in which he had no clue. In fact, mariners would largely hug the coasts thus they would … follow India through Burma to Malaysia noticing Malaysia to be a peninsula. It is impossible for them to mistake based on their practices. These maps are … our interpretation based on this mindset. We are using a modern map but notice we are blacking out the Malay Peninsula and Indochina to the left just as … most of these maps do even the ones we already covered on the previous pages. When you follow these directions from The Periplus of the Erythaean Sea, … Pomponius Mela, Dionysius the Tourist and others, this becomes evident as they all tie and lead to the same place in the correct paradigm. Additionally, … the maps we selected actually represent their written directions which we covered. All of them call Chryse an island and none of them accidentally meant … a peninsula just as Pliny the Elder calls it an island and never a peninsula. Dionysius even adds in an incredibly fixed marker regardless identifying Chryse … directly under the Tropic of Cancer. This made us realize that is exactly what The Periplus was describing as “under the very north” as the North begins … at Cancer. No one can move that and Malaysia is not even a remote fit as there are 2 countries North of it between such line yet the Philippines is directly … under Cancer which is inline with South China and Taiwan. Malaysia is also on top of the Equator and could never to associated with accuracy with the … Tropic of Cancer. Review these in detail, compare with the previous maps and any others you can find, and prove it out. We believe you will find this to … be accurate. As you complete this chapter, you will find this thinking fully confirmed on the next pages as the Portuguese found Chryse and Argyre and … documented it with a government-commissioned map. … 20 continued...
That paragraph should start with "Rothschild's" but if you look at the coding you see that Rothschild is separated from the text by a mark tag <mark>. How can that be unintentional?
The second instance where the Rothschilds are mentioned is on page 128.
 |
| page 128 |
NOTE: Dr. Craig did not wish to make a case for the Philippines as Ophir as he references Former Prime Minister Paterno did. Such is understandable. However, if he had actually truly researched the Biblical passages as we have, especially knowing the abundant history which he certainly did, such connection would become incredibly obvious. Does he quote Sir Douglas properly? Yes. See below. These are all native products of the Philippines and Ophir brought to China. See Testing All the Resources of Ophir. Though Douglas does not state Philippines by name nor could he as the Rothschilds would have his head, the products match and the deduction accurate especially in lieu of all the other evidence in context. Ophir/Philippines was trading across the ocean by ship as early as 990 B.C.
In this note Tim calls Sir Robert Douglas a pawn of the Rothschilds who could not mention the Philippines or they would "have his head!!"
What evidence does Timothy have that Sir Douglas was working for the Rothschilds? What evidence does he have that the Rothschilds were actively suppressing historical information about the Philippines trading with China millennia ago? He does not say. Tim claims Douglas is covering up the Philippines' role in early shipping to China by not naming them. But Sir Douglas does not name any of the eight nations alleged to have been trading with China during that period. Here is the text.
During the Shang dynasty (1766-1154 B.C.) we learn from the native records that' travellers from the neighbourhood of Canton came bringing fish-skin cases, sharp swords and shields. These men wore their hair short, we are told, and their bodies were tattooed. Other companies arrived bringing pearls, tortoise-shells, elephants’ teeth, peacocks' feathers, birds and small dogs.
At the beginning of the next dynasty — the Chou (B.C.1122-255) — intercourse had been established with eight foreign nations; and it was at Canton that the merchants of these states exchanged their goods for the products of Cathay.
Europe and the Far East, 1506-1912, pgs 1-2
That text says nothing about the Philippines or any other nation. To make it fit his purposes Tim resorts to quoting Dr. Austin Craig who says that those are products of the Philippines. Thus the Philippine-China connection is established, right? Wrong! Tim does not quote Dr. Craig in full and thus misrepresents him.
The British Museum's oriental scholar (Douglas: Europe and the Far East, Cambridge, 1904) states that by the beginning of the Chou dynasty (B. C. 1122-255) intercourse had been established at Canton with eight foreign nations. Duties as early as 990 B. C. were levied, and among the imports were birds, pearls and tortoise shell, products of the Philippines, but the origin of these has not been investigated. "Reliable history,"' says Dr. Pott (A Sketch of Chinese History, Shanghai, 1908), "does not extend further back than the middle of the Chou dynasty (B. C. 722).
After the time of the Chou dynasty we come to more solid ground, for at the beginning of the Han dynasty (B. C. 206) the custom originated of employing Court chroniclers to write a daily account of governmental proceedings. These diaries were kept secret and stored away in iron chests until the dynasty they chronicled had passed away; then they were opened and published, and so form the basis of our knowledge of the events that had transpired while the dynasty was in existence."
Philippine history, however, has attracted only incidental interest in the translating of these voluminous chronicles so that while the first three mentions hereafter to be cited are well within the reliable history period they have not been verified and are valuable only as suggesting more definitely where to investigate.
On page 137 of "The Search for King Solomon's Treasure" Tim write this:
In his original work "Europe and the Far East", 1506-1912," Sir Douglas, whom Dr. Austin Craig is citing, notes this trade took place in Canton in 990 B.C. thus Filipinos and others travelled there. Dr. Craig (1914) concluded that these products originated in the Philippines.
Tim could not be further from the truth. Dr. Craig says the history of China is unreliable beyond 722 B.C. and "solid ground" to determine history does not occur until around 200 B.C. when records began to be kept. Furthermore while Dr. Craig does admit those are Philippine products he says unambiguously that the origin of those products has not been investigated. He absolutely does not conclude they originated in the Philippines. This passage in "The Search for King Solomon's Treasure" is a blatant lie.
Tim has twisted Dr. Craig's words and he has smeared Sir Robert Douglas as being an agent of the Rothschilds. That's neither the work of a scholar or an honest man. That's the work of a propagandist. To quote Tim, "That's deception not scholarship." Tim does not know how to play the game right. He does not know when to hold 'em or when to fold 'em. He should just walk away from the table. He should not have entered the game in the first place. He is no scholar. He is the fraud here.
There is more commentary like this throughout the book but let's look at the strangest thing of all about this sourcebook: there are missing sources! Sources 161, 184, 190, 209, 225, 229, 230, 272, 277, 278, 290, 327-334, 342-346, 357-360, 363, 375, 385, 391, 413, 415, 416 are all missing from the Sourcebook! I cannot show all of these so I will show the most egregious case.
 |
| The Search for King Solomon's Treasure Sourcebook |
There is a leap here from 326 to 335. Why did Tim OMIT these sources from his Sourcebook? It does not make sense. That is a real problem because this authoritative sourcebook is supposed to prove his case beyond all doubt. Some of these sources do not even show up in the main text of his book.
Even though 209 is not listed in the bibliography of the sourcebook it is in fact on page 212. 346 is found on page 183 despite not being in the bibliography. 346 is a little confusing because it is the same reference as 179.
1. "History of Batnagas." Batangas Provincial Information Office. Province of Batangas. 2. Strong's Concordance "Ba'ah" #H1158, "Tan" #H8565, and "Gan" #H1588. Blue Letter Bible.
Source 298 is in the sourcebook and in the bibliography of "The Search for King Solomon's Treasure" but is not in the main text. Like 179 and 346 it is a reference to "Gan" #H1588. That means Tim has three sources with the same reference. Why is that?
Several sources appear to not show up in the book "The Search for King Solomon's Treasure" except for in the bibliography. These are: 161, 184, 190, 225, 229, 230, 277, 278, 298, 327-334, 342, 344, 357-360, 375, 413, 415. That is 26 sources unaccounted for. I noted in my review of "The Search for King Solomon's Treasure" that source 28 does not show up in the text of the book but only in the bibliography. That could have been a simple oversight but what are we to make of 26 other sources being left out of the book? What are we to make of all the sources missing from the sourcebook?
Some of these omissions could possibly be explained by the fact that they are duplicates. For instance 229 and 216 have the same reference to "pealim.com #6051." Source 216 actually has two references the second being to "pealim.com #5053." It is not clear why this reference to #6051 is repeated for 229.
Sources 161 and 166 refer to the same book but a different page. 166 makes it into the sourcebook and main text while 161 does not.
Sources 230 and 217 are exactly the same. They both refer to "Strong's Concordance #4327 Biblehub.com."
34 and 357 are basically the same as they refer to the same book and chapter of The Antiquites of the Jews. However 357 has two additional references to a Wikipedia article about the Kabul River and to "Old Iranian Online" which is a glossary of old Iranian words. Curiously Tim does not include this in his sourcebook though he clearly discusses these matters on page 52 of "The Search for King Solomon's Treasure."
 |
| The Search for King Solomon's Treasure, pg 52 |
Josephus is only dealing with Mesha in this rendering not Sephar and he is narrowing down the area very specifically based on references that we can connect even today in modern history. I)ohir and family lived initially in the bort', region of what we would identify today as Iran and Afghanistan. The Cophen River is acknowledged as the modern Kabul River in Afghanistan. Notice then Joseph. connects this with "and" meaning this is at border legion. The second region is "part of Aria adjoining Is it." Aria is very easy to identify Arya is the Old Persian name of what we call Iran today and its etymology still originates in Aryan. Therefore, Josephus is locating Mesha on the border of Iran and Afghanistan. Meshad, Iran accordingly materializes to be positioned on the Northeastern border or Iran right next to Afghanistan exactly where he placed it
What we have here is a bizarre instance where Tim did not attribute his sources in the text but did include them in his bibliography yet kept them out of the sourcebook. That is a huge oversight and certainly requires emendation for any future editions of this book.
Sources 22 and 344 refer to the same book. But source 22 actually refers to 3 sources not just one. In fact a few of Tim's sources have more than one reference attributed such as 346 with 2, 367 with 3, and 10 which has 4. This makes for a lot of clutter and overlap.
One of the sources left out of the sourcebook is 385. It is in the book. Here is the passage.
In fact, it was not until 1599, until the Philippines legally recognised the Spanish sovereignty over the Philippines. [385]
"The Search for King Solomon's Treasure," page 262
The source is listed as
Villarroel 2009, pp. 93–133
What exactly is this source? What is Villarroel 2009? If you Google that citation you will find out that it comes from Wikipedia. That means Tim did not read this source, has no idea what it says, but simply lifted the citation from Wikipedia. It's no wonder he excises it from his sourcebook. He cannot prove to his readers anything from it. How sad and pathetic for Tim to lift a citation as proof for his case even though he has no idea what it says because he never read it. But that is his method and we have seen this before in the 100 Clues review where he lifts three citations for proof that there was Filipino gold jewelry found in first century Egypt.
Source 345 is a strange case because there is no source number 345. Not in "The Search for King Solomon's Treasure" and not in the sourcebook. Tim skips from 344 to 346.
Again, is that an oversight or is it intentional?
Source 144 appears to not be in the bibliography but it is there. You just have to look closely.
Why is source 144 not in the margin? That is incredibly sloppy.
Let's end this critique with one more anomaly. Tim has 417 sources listed in the bibliography of "The Search for King Solomon's Treasure." But in the sourcebook he has 419 sources listed. Where do these two extra sources come from?
 |
| The Search For King Solomon's Treasure |
 |
| The Search for King Solomon's Treasure Sourcebook |
Again, is this a mere oversight or was it intentional?
Source 418 is actually included in the book on page 201 and in the sourcebook on page 209.
 |
| The Search for King Solomon's Treasure, pg. 201 |
|
Sinai. Hebrew: ×¡×™× ×™: Modern Sinait [418] Near Laoag where the Lost Tribes of Israel may have landed in the desert, we oddly find three symbols of a second exodus. Today the name has been changed adding a "t" on the end but on this 1775 map, the area, the river and an island North are all labeled Sinai. Unto itself this is perhaps coincidence. However; with all the overwhelming such references in the Philippines, this is certainly a Hebrew word. Vigan, originally Bi-Gan, is also a Hebrew possibility meaning come and go in the Garden.
Exactly how a map drawn up by a Frenchman in 1775 has anything to do with the Lost Tribes and residual Hebrew is left unexplained by Tim. It is not clear at all why Jean-Baptiste d'Après de Mannevillette, the man who made this map, labelled three places "Sinai" but it is rash to jump to Tim's conclusions. With no actual proof as to why three places are named Sinai Tim's explanation is ad hoc. In fact Wikipedia offers a totally different account of why there is a place named Sinait in Illocos Sur which totally contradicts Tim.
Small battles were daily occurrence so that in the year 1535, when the locality was organized and established as a “Pueblo” Salcedo named the new community as “SIN-NAIT”, a word in the local tongue which means “CONTEST”.
In the year 1575, the natives fully realized the hardships of pronouncing the term “SIN-NAIT” and to go away with the trouble, Salcedo declared that one of the letter “N” be dropped. Since then, this Municipality has been called “SINAIT”.
Is it true? I don't know and that's not the point. The point is there are alternate explanations for all the place-names in the Philippines rather than ancient residual Hebrew. And by the way the map Tim uses is actually from 1810 and not 1775. The link he gives for this source tells us that. A small detail but important nonetheless as accuracy is crucial.
What can we conclude from this? If this were all a mere oversight then we can conclude that Tim is a very sloppy editor. He claims to have 30 years of experience in the publishing industry and his self-published books are the fruit of all those years. It's hard to imagine that a man with so much experience in publishing could be such a sloppy editor. It is also equally hard to imagine that these are mere oversights. There are too many anomalies. What accounts for all the missing sources? Why are there 417 sources in the main book but 419 sources in the sourcebook? Why are there sources in the bibliography of "The Search for King Solomon's Treasure" missing from the main text? Why are there duplicate sources? Why is 345 completely missing?
Lest Timothy Jay Schwab and Anna shriek out that I am nit-picking let me remind them of their own words.
Everyone should at least be mindful this is a very credible case with full support which is why no one has been able to disprove it.
They are very proud of this sourcebook and declare it proves all their claims. Why is it so sloppy? Their listeners and readers deserve an answer.
