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

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

The Mystery of the Three Kings, pg. 68

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

Here is Tim's introduction to the matter. 

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

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

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

p. 69

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

pg. 69

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

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

pg. 70

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is the Greek with the relevant words highlighted.

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

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

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

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

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

MAGInoo: Tagalog: gentleman; gentlemanly; honorable.

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

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

pgs. 71-72

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

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

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

MAGdasál: Tagalog: to pray.3

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

pg. 72

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

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

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

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

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

Finally, Tim gives us this gem.

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

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

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

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

Mang yan:

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

pgs. 78-79

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

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

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

pg. 161

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

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

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

Revelation of the Magi Study with Tim Schwab and Lisa George

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

Wow! What a question, you know?

I know I like that question.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tim has this to say about Revelation of the Magi:

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

pg. 57

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

Chapter two of Revelation of the Magi says:

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

pg. 83

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

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

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

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

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

pg. 99

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

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

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

The Sages and the Star Child, pg. 79

In Chapter 5 section 4B Landau writes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

pg. 123

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

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

pg. 159

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

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

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

pg. 160

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

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

pg. 161

Brent Landau's note on these names is illuminating.

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

The Sages and the Star Child, p 78

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

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

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

p. 183

completely 

retarded and illogical.

pg. 124

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

pg. 209-210

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

The Sages and the Star Child, pg. 69

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

The Sages and the Star Child, pg. 2

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

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

pg. 188

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

Here is some more railing against scholars. 

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

pg. 72

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

pg. 73

The whole book is interlaced with that kind of nonsense. 

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

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

The God Culture: The Mystery of the Three Kings Book Review, Part 1: Foundational Principles

Timothy Jay Schwab who is The God Culture has released a brand new book just in time for Christmas. The subject is about the three Magi who visited the child Jesus Christ. Spoiler alert: the three Magi who visited Jesus Christ were actually twelve Filipino kings or Maginoos.

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

As I am writing this sentence I have yet to read the book. But, seeing that Tim's method is the same in all of his books and videos I can guarantee that there is the same bad etymology (always remember Tim  has said he is not and does not wish to be a linguist), bad geography, outright lies, railing against scholars as being ignorant and illiterate, and total misunderstanding of his sources. In several videos Tim has previously posited his thesis that the three Magi came from the Philippines and I have already debunked that claim. However, this book is a much fuller treatment of the subject matter based on a recently translated document titled Revelation of the Magi. 

As with all of Tim's books and videos there is a lot of information here, the book is 236 pages, but only the most important points shall be addressed. 

Imagine my shock that Tim starts off in a most ridiculous manner on the copyright page. 

pg. 2

Vatican Document Translation From

“Revelation of the Magi: The Lost Tale of the Wise Men’s Journey to Bethlehem.”

By Brent Landau. HarperOne, An Imprint of Harper-Collins Publishers. New York. 2010. Chapters and Verses noted in each reference. Out or respect, we will only publish excerpts of the translation and will not publish this text in its entirety. We encourage everyone to attain a copy of Landau’s full translation on Amazon and other outlets. Our use of these fragments is in accordance with the Fair Use Act.

What does Tim mean "out of respect" he will not be publishing the entire text of Revelation of the Magi? Legally you cannot republish an entire copyrighted work and also you might need permission to cite other works especially if those citations are substantial. Also note the typo "Out or respect." Will Tim ever get an editor to clean up his books?

Lisa George, who is a co-host on Zen Garcia's livestreams and who has interviewed Tim several times, wrote the foreword or, as it is spelled here, foreward. She begins thusly:

The people of the Philippines have endured more hardships as a whole culture than any other on earth. 

pg. 6

Is she for real? Africans brought to the New World in chains and Native Americans whose entire populations were exterminated by the Spanish might beg to differ. 

The introduction is a brief rehashing of Tim's theory the Philippines is Ophir, Sheba, Tarshish, and The Garden of Eden. It's the same old stuff filled with the same old errors concerning maps, etymologies, and everything else. As Tim so pridefully notes unless you are a viewer or reader of The God Culture you won't know what he is talking about. 

This understanding is not new, but an ancient view, known for thousands of years, which never should have been lost. One would struggle to find a single scholar who even knows this truth, unless they are a viewer or reader of The God Culture positions.

pg. 9

At the beginning of the introduction Tim informs us the Catholic Church knew the real history of the Magi and covered it up by hiding Revelation of the Magi in its archives for centuries. 

According to the translator, Revelation of the Magi (RoTM), from the Vatican Library, is dated as early as the second century A.D. It was recently translated to English for the first time, from the Syriac language, and published by Harper-Collins Publishers in 2010. This monumental document was translated and released by Brent Landau with the assistance of numerous Harvard, Cambridge and other university professors. Though not a firm date, Landau proves this document existed at least prior to 500 A.D., which is really all one needs to know. This means it preceded the Catholic legend of Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar as false, fabricated names as well as the spurious narrative of their deriving from Persia, Arabia, and India as is still claimed in ignorance. This writing lists their names as well as their land of origin, and none match the newer legend. This is not a Biblical fact, but is against what the Bible teaches, and is hiding their region of the Magi’s ancestry. These fraudulent names should never be repeated by any church.

The Catholic Church has known this legend was false from its inception, covering up the true land for some apparently nefarious reason. Why would they not want us to know the Wise Men came from the Philippines? Is it because they conquered that region, stealing its resources for centuries? We all know Spain was part of the Holy Roman Empire, as was the United States, who would conquer the Philippines after that. The Treaty of Paris of 1783 clarifies that the King of England and the United States of America, was also, Arch-Treasurer and Prince Elector for the Holy Roman Empire, led by the Pope, ultimately. Would this mean the Catholic Church knew it was stealing the very same resources from the same land of the 3 Kings, which also happens to be the land over the Garden of Eden, even according to this Vatican Library document? Or even greater, would this indict the Catholic Church as not actually bringing Jesus (Yahusha) to the Philippines, but suppressing the original, authentic Biblical religion of a land connected in relationship to Him for at least 1,500 years prior? This Vatican document answers that question in the affirmative. What does this say of the Catholic Religion, when it squashes the actual practice of the Bible and replaces it as a clear counterfeit? Well, we certainly do not expect nor wish for the Pope’s endorsement of this research. However, prove all things and hold fast that which is good (1 Th. 5:21).

pgs. 9-10

Further on Tim claims that Revelation of the Magi was suppressed because the Vatican wanted to hide the revivals which had occurred in the Philippines prior to the arrival of the Spanish. 

pg. 183

Not only was there revival when the Apostle Thomas arrived in ancient Ophir, there was a great revival prior to that in the Philippines. Before there were disciples and Apostles in the New Testament, a spiritual surge already began in the land of the Three Kings. Historically speaking, (though many falsely claim there is no history of the Philippines prior to Magellan in 1521), there were two great revivals in this Land of the Magi in the first century B.C. to A.D. Of course, all written history by Filipinos was discarded by the Spanish Catholics with the Pope’s blessing. This document preserved by the Vatican was originally written by Filipinos, in fact. It survives! The Papacy did not want the world to know they conquered the already Biblical Land of the Magi. Oops! This is why the Vatican left this document uninterpreted for 1,200 years.

Once again it's all about a conspiracy against the poor, oppressed people of the Philippines who are actually God's chosen people living right next to the Holy of Holies by hiding the truth from both them and the world. It is Tim's claim that a close reading of Revelation of the Magi undoes the Catholic Church's centuries long deception. 

Before delving into the text of Revelation of the Magi Tim lays down some foundational principles. These are to be found in two sources. The first is the Gospel of Matthew. Tim's foundational principle from Matthew is that the text indicates it took the Magi two years to arrive in Jerusalem after Jesus was born meaning they must have come from very far away. Persia, Arabia, and India are too close for such a long journey. Therefore they arrived from the Philippines by ship sailing around Africa. 

The Star was not a constellation or planetary alignment, as it could move from Jerusalem to Bethlehem. Stellarium software cannot find this Star. Its full route was from the Philippines, where it first appeared, into the Indian Ocean wherethe Magi followed it in their ship, for almost 2 years. When one learns, they originated in the Far East, this makes sense. They headed around Africa, into the Mediterranean, and finally arrived in Israel. The Star seemed to disappear at that point and reappear in the narrative (which will be affirmed). This is why they rejoiced, because they had not seen the Star since they arrived, and the journey would then continue. They would not have gone to Herod for directions if the Star had shown at that time. They would not have needed his help.

pg. 33

Imagine, the Magoi of Persia heard of the birth of the Son of Yahuah and Savior of the world, but decided to wait almost 2 years to arrive on an 8-week journey. They would seem to not be very motivated to embark upon such a journey, andalready fail the test of one deserving to be notified. This is ridiculously awry. The prospect from Saudi Arabia (whose title of ‘Magoi’ is not even appropriate), was much closer to Israel, and therefore fails each authenticity test even more so.

India is about twice the distance from Israel as Persia, and it still fails the location-based tests. It is about 4,500 km. to Jerusalem from there. Travel time would take about 180 days, based on our research, or just under 6 months. That is not two years. Go ahead and find a reason to double the estimate, and it still fails on all accounts. We know for certain the Magi traveled no less than a year, according to the Revelation of the Magi account, which we will cover. The Gospel of Matthew account holds the record of time, and his account says it was 2 years. Hopefully, we will all believe Matthew over a modern scholar.

If planning a trip from the Philippines, this would have to occur by boat. If the Kings, sons of Kings, and Wise Men met in the Visayas region; perhaps in Cebu, or nearby, they would have a much longer travel, justifying the two years. The Red Sea Port, at Ezion-Geber, was not available to Israel in that age. One would have to circumnavigate Africa, which the Greeks had already executed for more than 800 years at that point. There was no Suez Canal option then. In the first century B.C., a ship hugging the coasts (as was their custom in practice), would travel around three to four knots. At four knots, even with no breaks, one would arrive over 8,000 nautical miles away in Capetown, South Africa in about 100 days (according to Ports.com). As they were relying on wind and rowing in that age, they would need breaks in between, and typically they would not sail at night.

South Africa to Tanger, Morocco would be another 5,700 nautical miles. Let’s add another 58 days to equal 158 days, so far. Finally, the last leg of the journey from Morocco to Tel Aviv, Israel would be another 2,300 nautical miles, or about 23 days at sea. The grand total at sea, without breaks, would be somewhere around 181 days just in sea travel alone. One would need to at least double that, based on the ancient methods of not sailing at night, which would essentially be a year at sea.

One would add even more time if storms were encountered, and ships dock at coastline harbors to avoid damage to the vessel. Along with stops to trade for supplies, repairs, etc. this would likely add 6 more months. Thus, travel time could be around a year and 4 months to arrive on the coast of Israel. Then, they needed to travel to Jerusalem, (about 66 miles away), where they stayed, awaiting instructions and directions. They went to Herod during that time.

Revelation of the Magi times them arriving in Jerusalem about two months before the birthday of Jesus (Yahusha). We will cover that. Thus, total travel time was a journey of one year and ten months from the Philippines to Jerusalem. They waited there, and then they headed to Bethlehem, when the Star reappeared, a journey of only around ten miles or so. Of course, such a journey would also require planning before departure, which we did not account for in this rough math. The point is, the travel from the Philippines coalesces with the account from the Book of Matthew. All other times and locations fail miserably.

pg. 35-36 

This whole scenario relies on the existence of a trade route circumnavigating Africa. Such a route never existed. I have analyzed in depth Tim's so-called proofs for this non-existent route and you can read about that here. So, if the three Magi did originate in the Philippines they would not and could not have sailed around Africa. No one was sailing around Africa until Bartolomeu Dias made the trip in 1488. Also Revelation of the Magi does not support such a journey but more of that in part 2.

It's not true that the Magi would had to have been on the road for two years. Here is Calvin's commentary on the matter. 

There is some uncertainty about the date. Matthew says, that they were slain from two years old and under, according to the time which he had inquired at the Magi: from which we may infer that Christ had then reached that age, or at least was not far from being two years old. Some go farther, and conclude that Christ was about that age at the time when the Magi came. But I contend that the one does not follow from the other. With what terror Herod was seized when the report was widely spread about a new king who had been borne, we have lately seen. Fear prevented him at that time from employing a traitor, in a secret manner, to make an investigation. There is no reason to wonder that he was restrained, for some time, from the commission of a butchery so hateful and shocking, particularly while the report about the arrival of the Magi was still recent. It is certainly probable, that he revolved the crime in his mind, but delayed it till a convenient opportunity should occur. It is even possible, that he first murdered the Judges, in order to deprive the people of their leaders, and thus to compel them to look upon the crime as one for which there was no remedy.

We may now conclude it to be a frivolous argument, on which those persons rest, who argue, that Christ was two years old when he was worshipped by the Magi, because, according to the time when the star appeared, Herod slew the children who were a little below two years old. Such persons take for granted, without any proper ground, that the star did not appear till after that the Virgin had brought forth her child. It is far more probable, that they had been warned early, and that they undertook the journey close upon the time of the birth of Christ, that they might see the child when lately born, in the cradle, or in his mother’s lap. It is a very childish imagination that, because they came from an unknown country, and almost from another world, they had spent about two years on the road. The conjectures stated by Osiander are too absurd to need refutation. 

But there is no inconsistency in the thread of the story which I propose, — that the Magi came when the period of child-bearing was not yet over, and inquired after a king who had been born, not after one who was already two years old; that, after they had returned to their own country, Joseph fled by night, but still in passing discharged a pious duty at Jerusalem, (for in so populous a city, where there was a constant influx of strangers from every quarter, he might be secure from danger;) that, after he had departed to Egypt, Herod began to think seriously about his own danger, and the ulcer of revenge, which he had nourished in his heart for more than a year and half, at length broke out. The adverb then (τότε) does not always denote in Scripture uninterrupted time, but frequently occurs, when there is a great distance between the events.

https://ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom31/calcom31.ix.xxiii.html

Matthew does not tell us when the star appeared. Tim assumes that the star appeared after Mary gave birth and it took two years for the Magi to arrive because Herod slaughtered all children two and under. The text says:

Matt 2:16 Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently inquired of the wise men. 

Why did Herod slay not only "all the children that were in Bethlehem" but also those "in all the coasts thereof" when Jesus was born in Bethlehem and that is where the Magi went? Why not slay only those in Bethlehem? Because

he made sure of his prey by allowing a wide margin both in time and space.

https://biblehub.com/commentaries/matthew/2-16.htm

Tim in his simplicity sees "two years old" and thinks that means it took the Magi two years to follow the star. It is a nonsense exegesis that simply does not follow. 

As with all his teaching Tim has some weird things to say about this story. 

Is this the end of their story? No. We will get to that. This was their ministry over centuries time. They were the keepers of the secret of the Star of the Messiah, which is His light, not an angel, and not something routinely found in the sky. They were to be informed, and few were. These Magi were truly righteous priests in their own right. They brought the wealth that Jesus (Yahusha) would need to start His ministry. The angel warned them not to return to Herod, so they left and returned to their homeland. Matthew has no need to continue the narrative and would not be privy to such information beyond.

pg. 34

What is the secret of the Star of the Messiah?  As we shall see Revelation of the Magi testifies that the Star was the Messiah Himself. But why is this a secret the Magi alone kept? If it were true that Jesus was the Star why wouldn't that be in Matthew? And what is this nonsense about Jesus needing wealth to start his ministry? Did Mary store the gold, frankincense, and myrrh for thirty years until he started preaching? Did she bury it in Israel or did she take it to Egypt? Where is such an idea to be found in the Bible? Nowhere. Tim made it up. Thus the answer to Tim's question

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

pg. 161

is obvious. He is storytelling.

The second source of Tim's foundational principles is to be found in Psalm 72.

pg. 39

Psalm 72 is a song for Solomon and a prophecy of Jesus Christ. However, Tim is absolutely adamant that this Psalm, despite the title, has nothing to do with Solomon and is only about Jesus. The title is actually a blasphemous insertion by the Catholic Church. 

First, one must address the beginning of Psalm 72 in the King James Version, which appears also in the original, authorized 1611 version, the Brenton Greek Septuagint, and the Geneva Bible as “[[A Psalm for Solomon.]]” or “[[For Solomon.]].” We have a massive issue with the rendering in double brackets being interpreted that this is a prophecy of Solomon as that is NOT there. He fails on many levels many times as this son of David is the one and only Messiah. Notice, Hopkins referred to the Messiah as a son of David which we all know is appropriate as he descended from him indeed. It says David wrote the Psalm “FOR Solomon,” not that Solomon is the subject, which he cannot be, as only the Messiah fits the description in this passage.  

The likely origin of this gross interpretation and blasphemy is the Catholic Bible. In the version from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, they remove the brackets and render “Of Solomon” replacing “FOR.” They were changing the text in fraud. A Psalm written for Solomon to understand is certainly not the same as inserting Solomon as the Messiah and subject, which can be easily tested. David did not write for Solomon to know whom he was to be, but wanted him to know of the Messiah from his lineage. This becomes very obvious, as there are multiple Messianic prophesies in the passage that never fit Solomon, and they are not just a few, but many that would make this misinterpretation impossible, or at least one would think.

pgs. 42-43

What brackets is Tim talking about? There are NO brackets in the original 1611 KJV, Breton's Septuagint, or the 1560 Geneva Bibles.

1611 KJV

Breton's Septuagint

1560 Geneva Bible

"A Psalm for (or of) Solomon" is not an addition to the text. It is what the text says. That does not mean the Psalm is ONLY about Solomon because it is also clearly a prophecy of Jesus Christ. The 1611 KJV gives this description of the Psalm:

David praying for Solomon sheweth the goodness and glory of his, in type, and in truth, of Christ's kingdom

Not only does Tim get the subject matter wrong but he also gets the geography wrong. 

One must first restore the geography of Psalm 72, as well as Revelation of the Magi, and then, this is obvious.

pg. 71

And what is that restored geography?

The Three Kings were three leaders by precedence and yes, they were Kings. They originated in Ophir, Sheba and Tarshish in what we call the Philippines.

pg. 44

That means the Tarshish, Sheba, and Seba mentioned in verse 10 are the Philippines. 

The kings of Tarshish and of the isles shall bring presents: the kings of Sheba and Seba shall offer gifts.

But this is total nonsense as I have demonstrated many times on this blog. Please read through the articles on this blog and see for yourself that Tim is absolutely wrong about this so-called "restored geography." Here is John Calvin's commentary on Psalm 72:10 in full:

10.The kings of Tarshish and of the isles shall bring presents. The Psalmist still continues, as in the preceding verse, to speak of the extent of the kingdom. The Hebrews apply the appellation of Tarshish to the whole coast, which looks towards Cilicia. By the isles, therefore, is denoted the whole coast of the Mediterranean Sea, from Cilicia to Greece. As the Jews, contenting themselves with the commodities of their own country, did not undertake voyages to distant countries, like other nations; God having expressly required them to confine themselves within the limits of their own country, that they might not be corrupted by the manners of strangers; they were accustomed, in consequence of this, to apply the appellation of isles to those countries which were on the other side of the sea. I indeed admit that Cyprus, Crete, and other islands, are comprehended under this name; but I also maintain that it applies to all the territories which were situated beyond the Mediterranean Sea. 

By the words מנחה, minchah, a present, and אשכר, eshcar, a gift, must be understood any tribute or custom, and not voluntary offerings; for it is vanquished enemies, and the mark or token of their subjection, which are spoken of. These terms appear to be used intentionally in this place, in order to mitigate the odium attached to such a mark of subjugation; as if the inspired writer indirectly reproved subjects, if they defrauded their kings of their revenues. 

By שבא, Sheba, some think Arabia is intended, and by שבא,Seba, Ethiopia. Some, however, by the first word understand all that part of the Gulf of Arabia which lies towards Africa; and by the second, which is written with the letter ס,samech, the country of Sabea, the more pleasant and fruitful country. This opinion is probably the more correct of the two. It is unnecessary here to remark how foolishly this passage has been wrested in the Church of Rome. They chant this verse as referring to the philosophers or wise men who came to worship Christ; as if, indeed, it were in their power of philosophers to make kings all upon a sudden; and in addition to this, to change the quarters of the world, to make of the east the south or the west. 

https://www.studylight.org/commentary/psalms/72-10.html#verse-cal

Calvin mentions this verse again in his commentary on Matthew 2:1.

Magi is well known to be the name given by the Persians and Chaldees to astrologers and philosophers: and hence it may readily be conjectured that those men came from Persia. As the Evangelist does not state what was their number, it is better to be ignorant of it, than to affirm as certain what is doubtful. Papists have been led into a childish error, of supposing that they were three in number: because Matthew says, that they brought gold, frankincense, and myrrh. But the historian does not say, that each of them separately presented his own gift. He rather says, that those three gifts were presented by them in common. That ancient author, whoever he may be, whose imperfect Commentary on Matthew bears the name of Chrysostom, and is reckoned among Chrysostom’s works, says that they were fourteen. This carries as little probability as the other. It may have come from a tradition of the Fathers, but has no solid foundation. But the most ridiculous contrivance of the Papists on this subject is, that those men were kings, because they found in another passage a prediction, that 

the kings of Tarshish, and of the Isles, and of Sheba, 

would offer gifts to the Lord, (Psalm 72:10.) 

Ingenious workmen, truly, who, in order to present those men in a new shape, have begun with turning the world from one side to another: for they have changed the south and west into the east! Beyond all doubt, they have been stupified by a righteous judgment of God, that all might laugh at the gross ignorance of those who have not scrupled to adulterate “and, change the truth of God into a lie,” 

https://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom31.ix.xix.html

The fact is Psalm 72 is a prophecy of Solomon as well as Jesus and it has nothing to say about the Magi who came from the East. Tarshish, Sheba, and Seba are not the Philippines and are in a different direction altogether.  

So, these are the two foundational principles Tim will be working from: The Magi travelled for two years and a restored geography of Psalm 72 will tell us the nations from which the Magi originated are the Philippines. As I have shown above both of those principles are wrong. Everything in the book that follows will be wrong. What follows is Tim's interpretation of Revelation of the Magi. I will deal with that in part 2.