While looking over old files I found something I had not yet posted from Timothy Jay Schwab who is The God Culture. Tim says he met Duterte, gave him a copy of The Search for King Solomon's Treasure and then Duterte proceeded to mock him.
Excellent point. We found the President whom we met very hesitant and already ridiculing as he was programmed from the initial discussion admitting he studied to be a Catholic Priest. He was already ridiculing the Bible narrative he doesn't believe even claiming the 440 talents of gold is somehow allegory. Last we checked, when someone tells us they had 15.75 tons of gold, they are recording specifics most certainly that could never be defined as allegory. He, then, wanted to know where the gold was basically ridiculing the narrative as he is unaware of the amount of gold in his own country. We retracted and offered an advanced copy of the book with sourcebook in which he promised to read. He never did.
 |
| Answers in First Enoch Part 10: Bible History of the Garden of Eden. Affirming Enoch's Geography |
Mikee Abe: TGC, this is my suggestion. Please write/inform the PH National Historical Commission about the ancient name of the Philippines.
Present to the said Commission the historical/biblical facts concerning the real name of the Philippines which is OPHIR, and at the same time, the location of the Garden of Eden, which is in Ophir. YAHWEH, OUR GOD, KNOWS ABOUT THIS! GOD BLESS YOU, MEN and WOMEN of TGC!
The God Culture: We have and they refuse to read it. They have no interest in restoring Philippine History. Yah Bless.
Wavemaker: Most probably it is because the info is too shocking for them that it sounds ridiculous. They are uninformed after all. | think the other way around this is to talk to the senator who is in charge of the history or culture. He is influential enough to dictate how the textbooks will be written.
The God Culture: Excellent point. We found the President whom we met very hesitant and already ridiculing as he was programmed from the initial discussion admitting he studied to be a Catholic Priest. He was already ridiculing the Bible narrative he doesn't believe even claiming the 440 talents of gold is somehow allegory. Last we checked, when someone tells us they had 15.75 tons of gold, they are recording specifics most certainly that could never be defined as allegory. He, then, wanted to know where the gold was basically ridiculing the narrative as he is unaware of the amount of gold in his own country. We retracted and offered an advanced copy of the book with sourcebook in which he promised to read. He never did.
This is the problem with academia, the smarter they are, the dumber they become as if any of us thinks we know everything and stop learning, we enter the paradigm of being left behind in knowledge. We see this in the church as well as many grasp onto church doctrine and stop there never testing with what should be our source, The Bible.
Imagine what the Filipino ancestors would have thought of those who become puppets in thinking for the very conquerors that stole, raped, and even killed their children. Yet, these are trying hard to become a part of the Great Society today or in other words the One World Government of Gog of Magog. A perfect example we cover in The Search For King Solomon's Treasure is the Junk ship found off the coast of Zambales dating to the 1400s. The French Marine Archaeologist who was brought in to study and assess the ship determined it was of Philippine design and a Philippine Junk. Then, the National Museum idiot got ahold of these obvious, proven findings wrapped in a bow as one of the greatest finds in Philippine history and published in a science journal that the ship was a Thai ship because he is part of those who think only shame belongs to the Philippines uneducated in the slightest of ancient history as are most. We could all blame him and others at National Museum and National Historical for thinking like fools but the root is the problem. The conquerors control the education system still and must be rooted out. Yah bless.
Not only did Tim gift a copy of his book to Duterte but he also sent a copy to the National Historic Commission of the Philippines. They expressed no interest in his work. Tim says that's because they are not interested in restoring Philippine history. The then goes on to relate the discovery of a Junk ship found off the coast of Zambales. According to Tim:
The French Marine Archaeologist who was brought in to study and assess the ship determined it was of Philippine design and a Philippine Junk. Then, the National Museum idiot got ahold of these obvious, proven findings wrapped in a bow as one of the greatest finds in Philippine history and published in a science journal that the ship was a Thai ship because he is part of those who think only shame belongs to the Philippines uneducated in the slightest of ancient history as are most.
None of that is true. The French Marine Archaeologist, Franck Goddio, never said the "Junk was of Philippine design and a Philippine Junk." That is pure junk. What he actually said is the Junk is of Chinese design and was likely built by a Chinese community in the Philippines because it was made of wood found in the Philippines and shipbuilding at that time was forbidden by the Ming Dynasty.
Vessel architecture, date and nature of unearthed material as well as shipwreck location (west of the island of Luzon), make it highly to be a “Chinese” wreck – in the broadest sense of the term, namely travelling to or from China. Certainly built outside of China – most likely in the Philippines – it was loaded with an eclectic cargo of goods from all the major production centres of the Celestial Empire, collected in the harbour warehouses of southern China, but also Siam, Vietnam and elsewhere, before travelling to their final markets .The junk was as “Chinese” as the ships in the western Mediterranean from the imperial era were “Roman”.
The junk was also “Chinese” in its construction, with a hull shaped as a piece of split bamboo, transverse bulkheads with a compartmented hold serving as frame, hull planks joined with iron nails but also, following the traditional hybrid Southern China Sea style, with the keel playing an essential structural role, and using timber of tropical origin. All the wood species used in the construction of the Santa Cruz are found in the Philippine archipelago and most of the islands in the South China Sea, but not in China. The merchants who had chartered it therefore could not belong to the provinces of Fujian and Guangdong, sailing on ships built in China. The essentially “Chinese” architecture seems to rule out the possibility that it was chartered by the peoples of South East Asia, very active on the eastern route between Melaka and Manila Bay (Reid, 1996: 34-35), but who sailed on craft built with local traditional techniques (Manguin, 2001).
Ultimately, given the assumed departure port of the ship, wrecked off the coast of Luzon, and the fact that its ceramics all date from a period when the prohibition to build ships and trade abroad was strictly applied by the Ming, it is highly unlikely that the ship and its charterers were of continental origin. It is much more likely that they belonged to a Chinese community located in the commercial towns of the archipelago. Certainly made in collaboration with local shipbuilders, the junk benefited from their particular expertise. Its construction is consistent with a “tendency to crossing, identified in shipbuilding technology evolution, with a new type of ship in archaeological sites from between the fourteenth and sixteenth centuries, probably coinciding with the increasing role played by Chinese trade and ‘merchant adventurers’ in Southeast Asia” (Manguin, 2001: 15).
http://www.themua.org/collections/files/original/d983306f20edca8a8e0889272ba30e0b.pdf
The problem is Tim did not read the whole paper. He stopped at the part he liked and went no further. Tim's citation of Goddio is found on page 134 of his Sourcebook.
.png)
Tim appends a rather interesting note to this citation.
NOTE: Archaeologist Goddio above writes that there was "clear evidence that this ship was built in the Philippines." He could be wrong yet he continues to publish this 19 years later on his website indicating he did not see evidence which changed this perhaps. It leads us to question this. Using a bit of logic the conclusion already seems to have no basis. If Thai cargo was found in the lower cargo holds, it means they were the first stop on this very clear extensive International route of the Far East. Trade cargo from the nation of origin would not likely be found on the bottom as they would off-load it at every port from the furtherest point which sounds inefficient to us logically. It makes far more sense we are looking at a fully loaded ship returning to the Philippines in which it likely got caught in a storm and could not make it to shore. It is very odd that all the junks found in the Philippines are dismissed away as belonging to other countries and the Philippine history ignored by their own community of archaeologists it appears. It begs whether they have accurately attributed most of these in fact including the Lena Shoal. WE HAVE NOT EXAMINED THESE BUT THIS IS WORTH FURTHER RESEARCH. This is a discipline which typically sticks in it's paradigm and interprets only based on such paradigm. This is how they lost Ophir and cannot find it nor will they ever until one comes along outside of the box and thinks things through outside of such false paradigms. Good news, that someone is here.
Good news, that someone is here.
How ridiculous.
What is needed is not someone who thinks outside the box but someone who can actually take the time to research everything related to his thesis and someone who actually reads through the papers he cites. Tim is not that person. He reads and quotes selectively and does not bother to throughly research anything. We see this time and again which is why I am convinced there is no God Culture team.
Since Tim does not want to do the research I will give him a hand. The Lena Shoal and Santa Cruz Junks share the same type of construction.
The Lena Shoal and the Santa Cruz were ships that belong to the South China Sea Shipbuilding Tradition. Both exhibit features of the Chinese shipbuilding technique (bulkheads, iron nails) and the Southeast Asian shipbuilding techniques (v-shaped hull, planks edge-joined with wooden dowels).
This is one reason Bobby Orillandea writes the Santa Cruz could be from Thailand.
From the results of the origin and placement of the cargo, it was suggested that the Santa Cruz could have originated in Thailand, which is further supported by both the shipbuilding construction technique that developed in the area during this period (Flecker 2005), which matches the hull of the Lena Shoal wreck, and presence of Thai stoneware jars in the lower cargo holds.
Both paragraphs come from the same paper which Tim cites in his sourcebook. Once again we see he did not read through the whole paper to understand why Orillandea thought the ship could have originated in Thailand. The reasons are the construction of the ship as well as the contents of its cargo. But Tim is focused on the cargo and not the construction of the ship. He has completely missed the point. Instead of trying to understand he defamed Orillandea by calling him an idiot who thinks "only shame belongs to the Philippines uneducated in the slightest of ancient history as are most."
In a paper titled "Shifting patterns of glass bead cargo of 15th – 17th century Philippines shipwrecks" authors Jennifer Craig and Laure Dussubieux combine the statements of Goddio and Orillaneda.
.In 2003 an excavation off Santa Cruz Island, close to Zambales of Luzon (Orillaneda 2003), was conducted on a shipwreck hull identified as a hybrid South China Sea Shipbuilding Tradition (Goddio et al. 2014:8, 10; Orillaneda 2003; Orillaneda 2012, 2016a, 2016b). The shipbuilding technique is seemingly Chinese but the materials are from the Southeast Asia archipelago (Orillaneda 2016a). Pointedly, scholars surmise the ship was built by Chinese diaspora in the Philippines (Goddio et al. 2014:8, 10; Manguin 2001:15) or Thailand (Flecker 2005; Orillaneda 2016b).
See how these two ladies cite several papers to bolster their research? That is the complete opposite of what Tim does. Timothy Jay Schwab who is The God Culture is no researcher.
No comments:
Post a Comment