The God Culture: The Book of Jubilees and the Philippines

Timothy Jay Schwab's teaching about the Philippines is heavily dependent upon the Book of Jubilees. He is so reliant on this book that his organization, The God Culture, has published a new version complete with footnotes and a lengthy introduction which explains his unique interpretation of the book and how it relates to the Philippines. Unsurprisingly this is not a new translation but a reprint of R.H. Charles' 1917 translation albeit with some tweaking. Tim has taken the liberty of replacing the words "God" and "Lord" with "Yahuah" which he claims is the Hebrew name of God. 

The following advertisement for this new version of the Book of Jubilees highlights its importance to Tim's system.

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=712068022686551&id=376627072897316

Noah divided the Earth and left directions every believer should study and know. Test it!

2000+ year old book locates the Garden of Eden in the Philippines!

Full-color maps inside with 50 chapters of this historic writing kept as Torah.

That in sum is Tim's view of the Book of Jubilees. It was written 2,000 years ago by Moses, preserved as Torah or law, and the section where Noah divides the earth amongst his sons reveals that the Garden of Eden is in the Philippines. The catch is that the Garden of Eden is buried beneath the Sulu Sea and is not actually in the Philippines. 

I have written at length elsewhere about Tim's use of the Book of Jubilees and how its contents prove it is not scripture so I will not focus on that here. Instead I want to focus on three things.

1. Tim's Torah Test

2. Tim's emendations to R.H. Charles' text by "restoring the name of God"

3. The Philippines' role in the Book of Jubilees

The Torah Test

To prove that it is scripture Tim submitted the Book of Jubilees to what he calls a Torah Test and it passed with flying colors.

pg.47

The criteria for this test comes from the Blue Letter Bible's website: What criteria were used in determining which books belong in the Bible? There are five questions, two of which sprang from the brain of Tim and are not to be found on the BLB. Let's take a brief a look at each one.

1. Prophetic Authorship

“For a book to be considered canonical, it must have been written by a prophet or apostle or by one who had a special relationship to such (Mark to Peter, Luke to Paul). Only those who had witnessed the events or had recorded eyewitness testimony could have their writings considered as Holy Scripture.” (Note, Luke and Paul especially record the eyewitness accounts of others).

The first test has to do with the authorship of the book. Moses wrote it therefore it passes the test. Tim's proof?

According to the Book of Jubilees, Moses is the human author of the book with the assistance of the Angel of the Presence on Mount Sinai same as Genesis.

To say otherwise, we demand every such scholar produce their credentials that outrank the great prophet – John the Baptist and the Levites who kept scripture as this was their library thus Bible. We demand they produce another such library from the Temple priests that disagrees with this one. They have not and they have not conducted adequate research on this. We do not overturn scripture but continue what the only ones qualified to catalogue the Bible in history curated. They guarded scripture with their lives. We have had enough of scholars sitting in the seat of the scornful in councils and boardrooms and other vacuums in willing ignorance on this topic.

pg. 24

That is all ad hoc circular reasoning. The book says the author is Moses and the Levites who kept the library believed it therefore it's true. All the scholars who say otherwise are stupid. Yes there is a lot of anti-scholar invective in this book just as there is in "The Search for King Solomon's Treasure." How can Tim write in all earnestness that "they have not conducted adequate research on this" when the Book of Jubilees has been subject to all manner of scholarly monographs, papers, and examinations since 1850? That is an outrageous lie. Here is an extensive bibliography of that research. What Tim really means is that these scholars are wrong because they have not come to his conclusions about Jubilees.

There is a lot of stuff Tim says on this point I'd love to tackle but let's cut to the chase. Tim's canon of Scripture does not allow for him to believe that Moses wrote Jubilees. I say that because he believes 2 Esdras is historical and scripture. In that book we read the following:

2 Esdras:14:21: For thy law is burnt, therefore no man knoweth the things that are done of thee, or the work that shall begin.

37: So I took the five men, as he commanded me, and we went into the field, and remained there. 

38: And the next day, behold, a voice called me, saying, Esdras, open thy mouth, and drink that I give thee to drink. 

42: The Highest gave understanding unto the five men, and they wrote the wonderful visions of the night that were told, which they knew not: and they sat forty days, and they wrote in the day, and at night they ate bread. 

43: As for me. I spake in the day, and I held not my tongue by night. 

44: In forty days they wrote two hundred and four books. 

https://philippinefails.blogspot.com/2021/01/the-god-culture-philippines-is-center.html

According to 2 Esdras the law was burnt up and then Ezra restored it by receiving a revelation from God who dictated the books of Moses and many other books to his scribes. That includes Genesis. If we follow Tim's view then that would also necessarily include Jubilees since he believes it was written by Moses. Thus the Book of Jubilees we have today is not 2000+ years old nor did Moses write it. Ezra did.

That is not a matter of quibbling over technicalities. It's crucial because we have to consider the account of creation in 2 Esdras 6. It is very different from what is in Genesis and from what is in Jubilees as it mentions portions being given to both Enoch and Leviathan. Jubilees differs from the rest by having God choose the seed of Jacob immediately after the work of creation ends. That is nonsense as there was no seed to choose from amongst. It only makes sense if one realizes that the purpose of this book is not to relate history but to exalt the law and the nation of Israel as being God's chosen people.

According to Tim there are THREE canonical and historical accounts of creation and none of them agree with the other. Tim does not explain that. I say this is proof that Jubilees and 2 Esdras are not scripture. Remember that Ezra rewrote Genesis and Jubilees under the direct inspiration of God Himself. What then accounts for these three differing reports of creation? Would Ezra really write three differing and contradictory descriptions of creation under the direct inspiration of God? Tim does not say and I doubt he has even considered the implications of 2 Esdras 14 to his whole system. It is best to stick with Genesis which both Jews and Christians agree is scripture.

2. Witness of the Spirit 

“The appeal to the inner witness of the Holy Spirit was also made to aid the people in understanding which books belonged in the canon and which did not.” BLB quotes Pinnock who claims the canon is a matter of “historical process” (Clark Pinnock, Biblical Revelation, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1973, p. 104). [2] We would agree but Pinnock ignores the most obvious such history. The Levite Library or Bible canon found in Qumran serves as a time capsule for the Old Testament canon long before the Catholic Church nor councils. Every book in the modern Old Testament canon was found there except Esther. It is LevitePriests who were the keepers of scripture and the Qumran community identi es as such over100 times.

Tim says the Book of Jubilees passes the second test which is the witness of the Spirit.  His proof?

The Levite Library or Bible canon found in Qumran serves as a time capsule for the canon of scripture for the Old Testament long before there was a Catholic Church nor councils. It is the most authentic historic process imaginable including massive archaeology even. It supersedes all Catholic Councils and all Pharisee writings including Josephus and the Septuagint in authority and significance.

pg. 32

There is really nothing about the inner witness of the Holy Spirit here so one would have to judge Tim's argument as impertinent.  Even on the ground of "historical process" it fails because the Septuagint predates the Qumran library. On that matter Tim has it backwards thinking that the scrolls at Qumran are older. Jesus Christ Himself quotes the Septuagint and so does Paul. It was THE authoritative scripture in those times and it remains so in the Eastern Orthodox Churches.

3. Acceptance

“The final test is the acceptance of the people of God.” BLB notes this is to accept Jesus andthe Apostles which we agree for New Testament but this would also be to accept His people in the time of Jubilees which is the same as Genesis and Exodus – Israel. It still prophesies of Messiah though.

Tim's proof here is rather shallow.

Jubilees aligns with Torah in the significance of Israel. Though it’s time period is the same as Genesis, it has the first direct and most powerful prophesies of Messiah and appears the origin of portions of Revelation and End Times prophecy as being quoted by Messiah, John, James, Peter, Paul, Luke and even an angel in Heaven. A listing of such support would be pages long as there are many such occurrences throughout this book but we will cover some next.

pg. 32-33

Basically Tim is saying people quoted the book and that means people accepted it as canonical. This is false because the church and the synagogue both rejected Jubilees as scripture. Enoch is a prime example. Jude quotes a portion as doctrinal and authoritative but neither the church nor the synagogue accepted the book as canonical. This ties into his next point rendering it superfluous.

 4. Quoted As Doctrine In Scripture (Our Addition)

Our added test in which we will apply to Jubilees will assess whether or not this book is quoted in scripture for doctrine. This is not some arbitrary word or phrase but does doctrine derive from Jubilees which one does not and specifcally in other Old Testament writings? This is the ultimate exam.

In this point Tim says not only was Jubilees quoted but doctrine was derived from it. I will only list two examples to show how wrong this notion is.

John 1:1-3 KJV

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

The margin notes from the KJV anchor this passage in origin to Psalm 33:6 which is not it’s source for Him who created all things.

Psalm 33:6 KJV

By the word of the Lord were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.

What is John doing here? Nowhere in the Old Testament does it ever define the Messiah to come as the Creator of all things along with Yahuah. Certainly this anchor in Psalm is not a direct link to that. This should be a challenge to many scholars as this has no root in the modern Old Testament. Is John manufacturing new doctrine however? No, he is quoting the prophecy of Messiah from the Book of Jubilees.

Jubilees 16:26

And he (Abraham) blessed his Creator who had created him in his generation, for He had created him according to His good pleasure; for He knew and perceived that from him would arise the plant of righteousness for the eternal generations, and from him a holy seed, so that it should become like Him who had made all things.

 pg. 33-34

"What is John doing here?" He is appropriating the Greek doctrine of the Logos. Tim does not understand that. He likely has no idea what the Logos doctrine is and has probably never read Philo. This passage alone shows him to be an unworthy Bible scholar and theologian. How can someone who claims to have 30 years of ministry experience not understand the Logos doctrine? The Book of Jubilees was written by a Jew to specifically combat the encroaching Hellenism and would never contain the Logos doctrine as that is a concept rooted in Greek philosophy. The allegation that John is quoting Jubilees 16:26 is shown false by the fact that that passage says nothing about the Logos. Instead it mentions a "plant of righteousness."

Tim is also comparing English translations and not the texts in their original languages. He has no idea what Jubilees looks like in Greek or Hebrew and thus he cannot authoritatively pronounce that Jesus, John, Paul or anyone else is quoting Jubilees. Reading through his lists of alleged quotations one is struck by how shallow they actually are. Every time there is a similarity of words or phrasing Tim says that is a quotation from Jubilees. Especially if it is a phrase not found in the Old Testament such as "son of perdition."

In this second instance Tim alleges Jesus quotes from Jubilees and in the process gets his doctrine all wrong.

Paul does it again and Jesus(Yahusha) joins him when both use a term “son of perdition.” We cannot find this term in the entire Old Testament even once. However, it seems to be quoting the Book of Jubilees and though it may appear to be a simple term, this has powerful implications in determining whom the beast will be. Did Jesus (Yahusha) quote Jubilees? 

2 Thessalonians 2:3 KJV
Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; 

John 17:12 KJV (Words of Messiah)
While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled. 

Jubilees 10:3a
...And hast saved me and my sons from the waters of the flood, And hast not caused me to perish as Thou didst the sons of perdition... 

This becomes extremely important as the sons of perdition in Jubilees prior to the Flood are Nephilim – the offspring of the Watcher Fallen Angels not men. They are not redeemable according to Enoch and that is why Jesus (Yahusha) says they are the lost he could not save. Paul links that the Beast will be part Nephilim. MESSIAH QUOTED JUBILEES!!! WOW!!!

MESSIAH QUOTED JUBILEES!!! WOW!!!

Here Tim excitedly proclaims Jesus quoted Jubilees (WOW!!!) when he referenced the son of perdition. According to him this means the Nephilim. But that is wrong. Jesus is obviously referring to Judas who betrayed him. Why does Tim ignore the context of His words? This is the same stunt he pulls with Matthew 12:42 where he ignores the context and ends up with a wrong doctrine which actually serves as a sort of bedrock for his theology of the Philippines.

Even if they did quote Jubilees that is still no proof that it is scripture or that they thought of it as scripture. Quoting a text as being authoritative and even doctrinal does not make it scripture. See Paul's quotation of the poet Aratus for doctrine in Acts 17.

5. In Agreement With the Whole of Scripture (Our Addition)

Does it agree with scripture in whole? Even the Gospels have minor details to iron out in understanding, but how does Jubilees compare to Torah especially? The conclusion may surprise many.

The last criteria is that the book agrees with the rest of scripture. The bottom line is that Jubilees disagrees with scripture. The author adds a lot of details not in Genesis which make many of those stories quite different and not in an enlightening way. The two best examples are that in Jubilees 17-18 Satan and not God is behind the temptation to sacrifice Isaac thus turning the whole story upside down. The second example is in Jubilees 37-38 where Jacob and his family are transformed from lowly cow herders to mighty warriors who have nations paying them tribute! The Book of Jubilees alleges that Edom is still bearing the yoke of servitude laid upon them by Israel. Those are not merely different perspectives but whole rewrites of Genesis. Would Pharaoh allow a mighty nation of warriors who had placed nations under tribute into Egypt? It beggars belief.

The whole conceit of Jubilees contradicts the Bible. The point of the book is to exalt the law and show that it was not given to Moses on the mount but was given to Adam in the Garden of Eden and is actually embedded in nature. The Law is in fact God's highest revelation to man and it is ONLY for the nation of Israel and no one else which means there is no grafting in of the Gentiles. What Moses received was a recapitulation and not something new. But that makes the feasts of Tabernacles, Passover, and Pentecost unintelligible because they are all related to and commemorate the Exodus and the ensuing wandering in the wilderness. 

The doctrine of Jubilees concerning the law also contradicts the New Testament.

Galatians 3:17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.

According to Paul the law came 430 years AFTER Abraham. And yet Tim wants us to think even the Apostle Paul thought Jubilees was scripture! The law is also not the highest revelation of God as Jubilees proclaims. Jesus Christ is God's highest and final revelation to man and the law leads us to Him. Now with a new High Priest made after the order of Melchizedek and not Aaron the law has changed and is done away with. That is a brief summation of the Epistle to the Hebrews. It is a doctrine Tim rejects in favor of keeping the Torah in all its fullness. As he teaches, "The Law is what redeems us."

We must conclude that the Book of Jubilees fails the Torah Test and is not scripture.

Tim's emendations to R.H. Charles' text by "restoring the name of God"

To put it quite bluntly Tim has falsified this book. It is not really R.H. Charles' text because he has altered it by inserting YAHUAH every time God or Lord appears.

The Book of Jubilees uses YHWH interpreted “the Lord” inappropriately about 300 times. In this publishing of Jubilees, we have restored His name, YHWH, as Yahuah.

pg. 48

That is completely disingenuous and unscholarly. But no surprise because Tim ADMITS he and his group are not scholars!

We are not scholars.....

pg. 9

Yeah, no kidding. He's proven that time and again in his videos and books.

R.H. Charles' English version of the Book of Jubilees is translated from the Ethiopic text. That text is in turn translated from the Greek which is translated from the Hebrew. Here you have four generations of translation and Tim is only amending the ENGLISH translation! He has no idea what the original Hebrew actually says. It is therefore ridiculous for him to amend anything. He should have just published the original text as it is. 

 The Philippines' role in the Book of Jubilees

Now we come to the crux of the matter and that is the Philippines' role in the Book of Jubilees. In chapter 8 Noah divides the earth among his three sons. It looks like this:

pgs. 86-87

Right off the bat we can see that this map makes no sense at all especially when it comes to the Americas. Tim has Central and South America and part of North America allotted to Ham, negroes, and the rest of North America was given to Japheth, whites. But we all know the Americas were peopled by Asians who crossed the land bridge at the Bearing Strait. That would be people related to Shem. How does Tim explain the existence of Native American Shemites in Ham and Japheth's territory? He doesn't! Make no mistake Tim does connect Native Americans to Filipinos who he says are red-skinned Shemites in his book "The Search for King Solomon's Treasure."

There is also the problem of the simplistic designation of hot, cold, and mixed climate zones. North America is a temperate zone with extreme cold in the north, large deserts in the West, and rolling prairies in the middle. South America has the driest non-polar desert in the world, the Atacama, plus the Amazon rainforest and the windy desolate Pampas of Argentina. It gets cold in Argentina especially way down in Tierra del Fuego which is close to Antarctica. Speaking of which....where is Antarctica? Who gets that land? Ham of course.

Ham’s lands are hot. Obviously, it becomes cold again further South. There is no indication that Japheth nor Shem would cross through Ham to get to that portion and it is not in their inheritance. It stands to reason by default that Ham received all the way to Antartica to the South.

Ham must have not gotten the message because until modern times the only residents of Antarctica have been penguins, walruses, seals, and other sea animals.

Take note that Tim's interpretation of Noah's directions are based on a flat Earth model.

pg. 85

The perspective in which the Bible was written is one of a at round disc in cosmology. We do not enter such modern debate but to attempt to understand Biblical geography without understanding the mindset in which it was written is called willing ignorance. Galileo did not write Jubilees and anyone who paid attention in science class knows the world generally believed the earth flat prior to the Renaissance in which all of the Bible was written. Anyone calling themselves a scholar who will not admit this, is operating in willing ignorance.

pg. 256

This is more disinformation. If you learned in school that before the Renaissance and the age of exploration people generally believed the earth was flat then you received a bad education because that is a lie.

Tim is telling us that despite Noah knowing the geography of the entire world he was still unaware that it is round. Tim also says Noah got this information from Enoch who toured the whole Earth by flying around with the angels.

These directions indicate a worldwide knowledge from Enoch’s journeys flown by angels.

pg. 98

Apparently Enoch flew around the world with the angels yet was either unaware or neglected to tell Noah or anyone else that the Earth is a globe. Don't forget that what Enoch saw was BEFORE THE FLOOD! Noah is living in a new world transformed by the mighty flood waters.  According to Tim there is now an ocean when there was none before. So how is Enoch's antediluvian geographical knowledge relevant to Noah? It's not!

In his footnotes, or side notes, Tim explains his mapping by deciphering the many geographical markers. Some of these notes are flat-out wrong. Take this note on Jubilees 8:22 which mentions the Sea of Atel.

Atel is a “satirical term for intellectual” in Bengali. It is the Indian Ocean.

pg. 98

This explanation also shows up on the map on page 85.

West to Sea of Atel Atel is a “satirical term for intellectual” in Bengali. It is the Indian Ocean linguistically and in the directions

His source for this is Wikipedia and Quora as seen on page 285. But that does not explain anything. Why would the Hebrew writer of Jubilees or the translator R.H. Charles employ Bengali slang!? How does Atel being a Bengali slang word mean the reference is "the Indian Ocean linguistically"? What does that even mean? It does not make sense. Tim does not explain his reasoning.

According to James VanderKam, who has devoted his life to studying the Book of Jubilees, Atel means something far different.

The western limits of Ham’s lands are traced to two bodies of water: the Atel (’aṭēl) Sea, which is universally identified as the Atlantic...

Jubilees: A Commentary in Two Volumes, pg. 379

So says Daniel Machiela in his commentary on Noah's division of the earth in Jubilees and the Genesis Apocryphon.

The Atel Sea has been unanimously understood as an abbreviated reference to the ancient Atlantic Sea (’Ατλαντικὴ θάλασσα), while the Mauq has fostered more discussion.

The Dead Sea Genesis Apocryphon A New Text and Translation with Introduction and Special Treatment of Columns 13-17 (Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah) pg. 113

R.H. Charles also refers to the sea of Atel as the Atlantic in his footnotes. Seeing as Tim is using Charles' translation it certainly cannot be the case that he is unaware of the claim that the Sea of Atel is the Atlantic. He also lists VanderKam's book as a noted source on page 282 so he cannot be unaware what he says. Tim does not address or attempt to rebut this claim. He simply ignores it.

If it's not enough that Tim alleges there is Bengali slang in the text he also says Noah used an Old Norse word when mentioning a place called Fara in Jubilees 8:27. But he also thinks this same word, Fara, refers to Fairbanks, Alaska.

We do not have a clear track on Fara in history but the directions are extremely clear it is in this region. Especially since Shem is Asia. Fara in Old Norse means “Passage.” That could fit the Bering Strait. The process of elimination says so.

He repeats this again on page 259.

In Japheth’s territory, he crosses the Atlantic into the Americas as he is in Gadir and heads into the Ocean to the West. There is no other way to interpret that. The five great islands also give this away as in the Northern Hemisphere of his territory, 5 of the 10 largest islands exist there. However, four of them are in Canada thus North America is invoked. This is why we believe Fara is Fairbanks, Alaska or similar in the area.

Tim repeats this assertion about Fairbanks for the third time in his sidenote on the text.

Based on the orientation, this crosses the Atlantic to the West Coast of N. America. Likely. Fairbanks, Alaska or Farallon Islands off of San Fran. The 5 great islands affirms this as 4 of them are in N. Canada

As Johnny Horton sang, "North to Alaska! We're going north, the rush is on!" In this case however it would be West to Alaska.

This is utterly ridiculous on its face. Why would there be a singular Old Norse word in this Hebrew text? Why would there be any reference to Fairbanks, Alaska in this ancient text? There wouldn't be and there is not. FAIRBANKS, ALASKA!? Is he kidding??  This is more of Tim's erroneous linguistic method of defining words by similarity of sound. I won't waste space offering a rebuttal from any scholarly commentary on what Fara might indicate because Tim's interpretation is so obviously dead wrong. This garbage alone is enough to write Tim off for the huckster that he is. He has no idea what he is talking about. He is literally making stuff up as he goes. Anyone who takes Tim seriously as a Bible scholar or history teacher is a fool.

Here's two boners from Tim's comments on Jubilees 8:15 which reads as follows:

And it turneth from here towards the south towards the mouth of the great sea on the shore of (its) waters, and it extendeth to the west to ‘Afrâ and it extendeth till it reacheth the waters of the river Gihon, and to the south of the waters of Gihon, to the banks of this river. 

i. e. Africa in the restricted sense of the Roman province which included Egypt and the other northern parts.

i. e. Pre-Flood River from Eden Surrounds whole land of Ethiopia which on maps from 450 B.C. to 1800s was East to West Coast. Must surround all of Africa. Not Nile.

pg. 97

There are lots of problems with this. Here is VanderKam's note on this passage:

From the mouth of the Great Sea the boundary “goes toward the west of Afra and goes until it reaches the water of the Gihon River.” Gihon is a name for the Nile (see below), but Afra is more difficult. Names with somewhat similar spellings occur in 8:27 (Fara and Aferag in Japheth’s allotment). The spelling Afra suggested to Charles and Hölscher that Africa was its meaning here. A difficulty with their proposal is that Africa is a later name for the continent or the northern parts of it (Libya is the earlier term), so that one would not expect a mid-second-century work such as Jubilees to call it Africa. A reference to the continent would also not be fitting in the context, since the writer says the boundary goes to the west of Afra. Machiela suggests that the reference is to the famous island of Pharos, which would also fit well with the mention of the Nile following immediately after it. Gihon, a scriptural name for a river that flowed from Eden, was widely regarded in antiquity as the Nile.

pg. 373

Daniel Machiela, who is referenced above by VanderKam, has a long excursus on Afra beginning on page 111 of his book "The Dead Sea Genesis Apocryphon A New Text and Translation." It is not Africa.

Tim thinks Afra means Africa and he gets that from Charles who says the same. Why does Tim accept this interpretation but reject Charles' note about Atel being the Atlantic?

As for Gihon Tim believes that the rivers of Eden were submerged during the flood. They are now what we call ocean trenches. Why would Noah designate an ocean trench which no one can see as a marker to the boundary of Ham's territory? It doesn't make any sense whatsoever. The testimony of antiquity is that the Gihon is the Nile. It may or may not be but it certainly cannot be that Noah is referring to an out of sight ocean trench. If he were then his directions would be unintelligible.

The Philippines factors into these directions in Jubilees 8:22-23 which reads:

22: And for Ham came forth the second portion, beyond the Gihon towards the south to the right of the Garden, and it extendeth towards the south and it extendeth to all the mountains of fire, and it extendeth towards the west to the sea of ’Atêl and it extendeth towards the west till it reacheth the sea of Mâ’ûk -- that (sea) into which †everything which is not destroyed descendeth†.

23: And it goeth forth towards the north to the limits of Gâdîr, and it goeth forth to the coast of the waters of the sea to the waters of the great sea till it draweth near to the river Gihon, and goeth along the river Gihon till it reacheth the right of the Garden of Eden.

pg. 98

Tim says these mountains of fire are the 147 volcanoes of Indonesia.

i.e. Gunung Gunung Api, “Mountains of Fire.” Indonesia’s 147 volcanoes.

This cannot be the case. Tim says that Noah received his knowledge of geography from Enoch who was flown around the world by angels.  Here is what Enoch has to say about "mountains of fire."

18:8 I perceived at the extremity of the earth the firmament of heaven above it. Then I passed on towards the south;

18:9 Where burnt, both by day and night, six mountains formed of glorious stones; three towards the east, and three towards the south.

24:1 I went from there to another place, and saw a mountain of fire flashing both by day and night. I proceeded towards it; and perceived seven splendid mountains, which were all different from each other.

Those are verses R.H. Charles refers to in his footnotes on this passage. Enoch is not describing the 147 volcanoes of Indonesia. His description refers to mountains that do not even exist. Where on this planet are there six mountains burning day and night and formed of glorious stones?

Daniel Machiela says the following about these mountains:

From here the description moves “southward and goes to all the fiery mountains,” which are unidentified and probably owe to mythical ideas concerning the far southern portion of the earth. Since one goal of the Ionian map appears to have been symmetry, this range was probably meant to balance the more well-known Mountains of Qelt in the north ( Jub. 8:26).

pg. 113

According to Tim's mapping of these directions Indonesia is the eastern limit of Ham's border and it ends at the Garden of Eden and the Philippines. But just like the mentioning of the river Gihon this mention of the Garden of Eden makes no sense in Tim's geography because he believes that the Garden of Eden is underneath the Sulu Sea. Why would Noah make the Garden of Eden not just a marker of Shem's territory but also call it one of three holy places, it being the Holy of Holies, and neglect to mention that it had been submerged in the flood? From Jubilees 8:

18: And Noah rejoiced that this portion came forth for Shem and for his sons, and he remembered all that he had spoken with his mouth in prophecy; for he had said: Blessed be Yahuah Elohim of Shem, And may Yahuah dwell in the dwelling of Shem.”

19: And he knew that the Garden of Eden is the holy of holies, and the dwelling of Yahuah, and Mount Sinai the centre of the desert, and Mount Zion--the centre of the navel of the earth: these three were created as holy places facing each other. 

pg. 98

How is the Garden of Eden facing Mount Zion and Mount Sinai when it is thousands of miles away underneath the Sulu Sea? It can't be facing them! It would be like saying Manila faces the Titanic because you can draw a straight line across a map from one to the other.

This is all too stupid and I am done here. Tim's system is incoherent and lacks any sense. That he thinks Noah was referring to modern day Fairbanks, Alaska or that there is Old Norse and Bengali slang in the text is outrageous, egregious, and preposterous.  Tim has obviously not thought through the implications of the submerged Rivers of Eden and the Garden of Eden. If they are submerged and invisible then Noah's directions make no sense. There is a lot of nonsense in Tim's annotated version of the Book of Jubilees and it's not worth the bother. You can read it for free at this link. Don't be put off by having to enter in your email address. Any address will do, not necessarily yours.

I am going to end with some maps of Noah's division of the earth from the aforementioned commentary on the Genesis Apocryphon. It should be noted that this division has strong Hellenistic influences.

Like Jubilees, the Genesis Apocryphon displays a considerable amount of Greek influence. Most significant in both works are a heavy indebtedness to the Ionian world map—a dependence explored at length in Chapter 4.

The Dead Sea Genesis Apocryphon A New Text and Translation with Introduction and Special Treatment of Columns 13-17 (Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah)  pg. 133.

Simply put it means Noah's division of the earth is going to look like the maps of the Greeks. Here are 6 maps of Noah's division of the earth. These appear on pages 105-106 of Machiela's book. They look exactly like Greek descriptions of the world.

None of those maps looks remotely like Tim's map. Not in the slightest! And who is more credible? Scholars and academics who have devoted their lives to studying the Book of Jubilees and other similar ancient writings or Tim and his crew who admit they are not scholars, make many blunders in their research, have only been at it for five years, and have an agenda?