Showing posts with label god culture. Show all posts
Showing posts with label god culture. Show all posts

Sunday, January 25, 2026

The God Culture: AI Debunks Bethabara: Where the New Testament Truly Begins

Timothy Jay Schwab who is The God Culture is set to release a new book about the origins of the early Church. The title is Bethabara: Where the New Testament Truly Begins: The Priesthood in Exile, the Wilderness Gospel, and the True Origins of the Early Church. 


Bethabara

This book is very obviously a distillation of all his teachings about the Dead Sea Scrolls, John the Baptist, and the Qumran community. Tim claims it will be the most academically rigorous book he has yet published. 

This is the most academically rigorous, carefully sourced, and spiritually confronting work we have ever released.

https://www.youtube.com/post/UgkxhdbDjazhGTCOYkOBVQ3SqX9XgjEIYSOc

That remains to be seen but judging by all the videos he has published on the topic, and which have been thoroughly debunked on this blog, it will not hold up to scrutiny.

This book features a new co-author named Paul Spitz. He refers to Tim as being "brilliant."

Facebook 

More brilliant work by my friend Tim Schwab from The God Culture - Original
Just wait for what we have cooking for 2026…

It goes without saying that Timothy Jay Schwab is by no means a brilliant person. He is a poor researcher and his books are filled with errors of every kind. To come away with the perception that he is brilliant is a loud warning sign telling the world that your judgement is not to be trusted. 


Tim has posted a summary of the book's contents. 

Where did the New Testament really begin?
Not in Jerusalem.
Not at Pentecost.
Not in Rome.
But in the wilderness — at Bethabara.

Bethabara: Where the New Testament Truly Begins uncovers the forgotten priestly, prophetic, and geographical foundations of early Christianity — revealing that the roots of the Gospel do not originate in institutional religion, but in a wilderness sanctuary preserved by a faithful remnant.

Drawing from Scripture, archaeology, the Dead Sea Scrolls, early Jewish sources, and the Gospels themselves, this book demonstrates:

• That Bethabara was a real, identifiable priestly site — not a symbolic or legendary place
• That John the Baptist was not a fringe ascetic, but the final legitimate High Priest of the Zadokite lineage
• That the earliest disciples were formed in the wilderness, not in Galilee or Jerusalem
• That baptism, repentance, and covenant renewal began before Pentecost — and outside the Temple
• That the priesthood described by Ezekiel survived in exile and prepared the way for Messiah
• That the early Church was launched from purity and prophecy, not power and politics

This work challenges the dominant academic assumptions about the Essenes, Qumran, the Temple, and the origins of Christianity — and restores the biblical narrative to its original covenantal framework.

This is not a speculative theory.
It is a convergence of texts, geography, archaeology, and prophecy.

For pastors, theologians, historians, Bible students, and anyone seeking to understand the true foundations of the New Testament, Bethabara offers a deeply documented, Scripture-driven reexamination of where Christianity was born — and why that matters.

The Gospel did not begin in empire.
It began in the wilderness.

It's the same old stuff he has been teaching for years now and which has been debunked in many articles on this blog. A full review of the book obviously cannot be given at this time but the description is enough to inform the reader what Tim will be teaching. So, I ran it through ChatGPT for an analysis. While the analysis had some positive things to say about it the conclusion overall was negative. It is reposted here in full. 

Below is a veracity-focused analysis, separating what is well-supportedwhat is partially plausible, and what is not supported by current evidence. I’ll evaluate the claims as historians, biblical scholars, and archaeologists would—not whether they are theologically meaningful, but whether they are demonstrably true.


1. “The New Testament really began at Bethabara”

Veracity: Partially true (theologically), false (historically as stated)

  • What is true

    • The public ministry of Jesus begins with John the Baptist (Mark 1:1–11).

    • John’s ministry takes place outside Jerusalem, in the wilderness near the Jordan.

    • The Fourth Gospel explicitly names “Bethany/Bethabara beyond the Jordan” (John 1:28 in some manuscript traditions).

  • What is not true

    • The New Testament as a historical corpus does not “begin” at Bethabara.

      • Historically, the New Testament emerges decades later, with Paul’s letters (c. 50s CE) and the Gospels (c. 65–95 CE).

      • Canon formation occurs centuries later.

    • Even narratively, the Gospels themselves frame Pentecost (Acts 2) as the birth of the Church.

Verdict:
Bethabara can be framed as the inaugural moment of Jesus’ mission, but not as the historical or canonical beginning of the New Testament.


2. “Bethabara was a real, identifiable priestly site”

Veracity: Unproven

  • What is true

    • Bethabara/Bethany beyond the Jordan is a real toponym preserved in textual tradition.

    • The Jordan River region was associated with ritual purification.

    • Archaeology confirms Jewish ritual activity at several Jordan crossings.

  • What is not established

    • There is no archaeological evidence identifying Bethabara as a priestly center, sanctuary, or Zadokite site.

    • No inscriptions, priestly artifacts, or cultic structures link it to an organized priesthood.

    • Scholarly debate continues over where Bethabara actually was (east vs. west of the Jordan).

Verdict:
Bethabara is real as a place name, but its status as a priestly sanctuary is speculative.


3. “John the Baptist was the final legitimate High Priest of the Zadokite lineage”

Veracity: False (by historical standards)

  • What is true

    • Luke presents John as priestly by birth (son of Zechariah, a Temple priest).

    • The Zadokites were the legitimate priestly line in earlier biblical tradition.

    • Some sectarian Jews (e.g., Qumran community) believed the Jerusalem priesthood was corrupt.

  • What is not true

    • No ancient source (biblical, Qumran, Josephus, rabbinic) calls John:

      • a High Priest

      • a Zadokite

      • a functioning cultic authority

    • John never performs priestly duties (sacrifice, altar service).

    • High Priests were appointed politically under Roman oversight—John held no such office.

Verdict:
This claim has no historical evidence and contradicts how priesthood functioned in the Second Temple period.


4. “The earliest disciples were formed in the wilderness, not Galilee or Jerusalem”

Veracity: Partially true, overstated

  • What is true

    • Several early disciples (Andrew, possibly John) originated with John the Baptist (John 1).

    • Initial messianic expectation forms before Jesus’ Galilean ministry.

  • What is false

    • The Gospels clearly show:

      • Discipleship formation primarily in Galilee

      • Teaching, commissioning, and movement consolidation in towns and synagogues

    • Jerusalem becomes central very early (Passion, Resurrection, Pentecost).

Verdict:
Some disciples begin in the wilderness, but discipleship formation is predominantly Galilean and Jerusalem-centered.


5. “Baptism, repentance, and covenant renewal began before Pentecost and outside the Temple”

Veracity: True (with qualifications)

  • What is solid

    • John’s baptism predates Pentecost.

    • It occurs outside the Temple system.

    • Repentance and renewal movements were active in Second Temple Judaism.

  • Important clarification

    • John’s baptism is not Christian baptism as understood post-resurrection.

    • Pentecost marks:

      • the giving of the Spirit

      • communal ecclesial identity

      • apostolic mission

Verdict:
Historically correct, but theological continuity should not be overstated.


6. “The priesthood described by Ezekiel survived in exile and prepared the way for Messiah”

Veracity: Theologically interpretive, historically unprovable

  • What is true

    • Ezekiel’s vision deeply influenced later Jewish thought.

    • Some groups (possibly Qumran) saw themselves as custodians of priestly purity.

  • What is not demonstrable

    • No evidence of a continuous, organized Ezekielian priesthood operating into the 1st century.

    • No direct link between such a priesthood and John or Jesus.

Verdict:
This is theological interpretation, not historical fact.


7. “The early Church was launched from purity and prophecy, not power and politics”

Veracity: Rhetorically true, historically incomplete

  • What is accurate

    • Early Christianity began as a marginal, prophetic movement.

    • It opposed certain religious and political powers.

  • What is omitted

    • From its earliest decades, Christianity:

      • engaged cities

      • navigated Roman structures

      • interacted with Temple authorities

    • Power and politics enter the story very early, not centuries later.

Verdict:
True as a theological emphasis, not as a full historical description.


Overall Assessment

Claim CategoryVeracity
Wilderness importance✔ Partially true
John as priestly reformer✔ Limited
John as Zadokite High Priest✖ False
Bethabara as priestly center✖ Unproven
Pre-Pentecost renewal✔ True
Ezekielian priesthood continuity✖ Speculative
Church origin narrative✔ Theologically framed

Final Judgment

This work is best described as:

A theologically driven reinterpretation that blends real biblical motifs with speculative historical reconstruction.

It does not meet the standards of historical proof for several of its strongest claims, particularly regarding:

  • John the Baptist’s priestly status

  • Zadokite lineage

  • Bethabara as an institutional sanctuary

However, it correctly highlights:

  • the wilderness as a critical biblical setting

  • John’s foundational role

  • the non-imperial origins of Jesus’ ministry

In short:

  • Compelling theology

  • Weak historical verification

  • Strong rhetorical framing

  • Not academically established

Sunday, January 18, 2026

The God Culture: The Feasts of Light Book Review

Timothy Jay Schwab who is The God Culture has released a nine-week study guide on how to keep the feasts titled The Feasts of Light. 


The subtitle, Obedience Over Sacrifice, is both brazen and hilarious. Brazen because Tim is openly teaching keeping the feasts without offering up sacrifices and hilarious because this is actually disobedience. The subtitle comes from 1 Samuel 15. 

20 And Saul said unto Samuel, Yea, I have obeyed the voice of the LORD, and have gone the way which the LORD sent me, and have brought Agag the king of Amalek, and have utterly destroyed the Amalekites.

21 But the people took of the spoil, sheep and oxen, the chief of the things which should have been utterly destroyed, to sacrifice unto the LORD thy God in Gilgal.

22 And Samuel said, Hath the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams.

It's not clear why Tim thinks this verse supports him in his partial observance of the feasts. Samuel is not saying God doesn't desire sacrifice. He is saying that he does not want a sacrifice he did not command. Saul was seeking to sacrifice animals the LORD had demanded be slaughtered. Had he sacrificed them he would have been offering up strange fire like the sons of Aaron. The point is Saul was disobedient not that sacrifices are unimportant. 

On page 13 Tim writes: 

Partial obedience is complete rebellion disguised as worship.

The irony is thick as Tim denies the necessity of sacrifices in keeping the feasts. He is behaving exactly like Saul. 

The study guide is rather puzzling as Tim does not offer suggestions on how to keep the feasts in the guide itself. Instead the guide acts as a primer on the symbolic meaning of each feast and how Christ fulfills them. Ah, yes there's that word fulfill. It doesn't mean abolish or finished.

2 Ful􏰁lled Does Not Mean Finished

When Yahusha said He came to ful􏰁ll the Law, He used the Greek plēroō — “to fi􏰁ll to completion,” not “to abolish.”

A cup 􏰁filled to the brim is not discarded; it is complete and ready to be shared.

Each Feast 􏰁finds its fullest meaning in Him, yet the invitation to celebrate remains.

“To ful􏰁ll is to illuminate, not eliminate.”

pg. 23

Comparing the work of Christ to filling a cup with water is a horrible analogy. Bringing up the "fulfill does not mean abolish" bugbear is more of Tim's dishonesty. Pleroo means TO FINISH, to BRING TO AN END. He has been corrected on this before and refuses to learn. 

The Greek says fulfill, or pleroo, means "to complete."

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/g4137/kjv/tr/0-1/

πληρόω plēróō, play-ro'-o; from G4134; to make replete, i.e. (literally) to cram (a net), level up (a hollow), or (figuratively) to furnish (or imbue, diffuse, influence), satisfy, execute (an office), finish (a period or task), verify (or coincide with a prediction), etc.:—accomplish, after, (be) complete, end, expire, fill (up), fulfil, (be, make) full (come), fully preach, perfect, supply.

Christ completed the law. He finished the law and brought to an end by executing it fully. All the shadows of the law were perfected and brought to reality in and by Him. He is the Passover lamb sacrificed for us, He is God tabernacling in human flesh, He is the firstfruits from the dead, His blood is sprinkled on the mercy seat in Heaven making atonement for us, He sent the Holy Spirit on Pentecost just as He gave Moses the law on that same day, and on it goes as all the sacrifices and all the feasts and all the holy days are brought to their completion and fulfillment in Him. The book of Hebrews is very explicit that Christ completed the law by becoming incarnate and shedding his own blood for us. 

https://thegodculturephilippines.blogspot.com/2021/09/the-god-culture-rest-case-for-sabbath.html

The law is not abolished but remains a schoolmaster to lead us to Christ. 

Galatians 3:23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.

24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

The whole purpose of the law is to lead us to Christ. But Tim would have us all live in the shadows.

3 The Shadow and the Substance

Paul wrote: “These are a shadow of things to come, but the body is of Messiah.” (Col 2:16–17, cf. Heb 10:1)

A shadow proves light exists. We don’t destroy the shadow because the light appeared — we walk in it toward its source.

The Feasts remain the pattern of heavenly realities (Heb 8:5; Rev 21:23). The shadow does not disappear until the source is removed. Heaven is still there.

pg. 23

Sorry, but no. Jesus nailed the law to the cross. We are dead to the law and alive to Christ. 

Col 2:14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

Eph 2:15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;

Hebrews 10:1 also serves Tim no purpose. 

For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.

If the shadow doesn't disappear then that means the sacrifices of the law, which were a shadow of Christ, are still to be offered up! But not even Tim is crazy enough to say that. He acknowledges that Christ put an end to sacrifices. However, that just makes his system illogical. There is no partial keeping of the law. We either keep the whole thing or none of it. That includes the sacrifices, the washings, the stonings, and all the rest. 

The New Testament doctrine of the law being fulfilled in Christ and Christians no longer being obligated to keep the Mosaic law, including the feasts, is well known. At this point it's like beating a dead horse. 

The most interesting part of this book is the end where Tim has a detailed worship plan for each feast.  The worship order for Passover is representative of the rest. 

PASSOVER (Pesach .1 פסח )
Evening Meal & Service (Sunset to Sunrise) — Feast Sabbath

(Cooking and Serving Allowed)

Service Elements:

Opening prayer of thanksgiving
Reading of Exodus 12 & the Gospels (Capture Narrative)
 

Consumption of bitter herbs as commanded (unleavened bread included)  

Meal with any clean meat (no sacrifices — Messiah is the Lamb) 

Foot-washing (optional, John 13)
Family testimonies
“This do in remembrance of Me” (The original Communion) Close with worship

Notes:

Scripture shows households contributing (Ex. 12:3–4); shared meal is appropriate.

Absolutely no lamb sacrifice — Yahusha ful􏰁lled it once for all. Menu only specifies the inclusion of Bitter Herbs signifying the bitterness of slavery in Egypt.

pg. 64

First of all that is not how God commands Passover to be kept. A sacrificed lamb is the very essence of the feast. To say that Yahusha fulfilled the sacrifice and yet demand the feast still be kept is schizophrenic. The feast cannot be both fulfilled and not fulfilled. 

It should not be forgotten that everything Tim does finds its telos in restoring the Philippines as the most important land in the world. It is in this land that the law of God will be restored in full and that includes the feasts. Here is his declaration. 

Today, we stand as one people — humbled, awakened, and ready — as Yahuah calls the Philippines to restore His ways, His rhythms, and His Appointed Times.

For generations, our nation inherited calendars, traditions, and celebrations that obscured the very Feasts Yahuah commanded for His people. Not in rebellion — but in innocence.
Not in de􏰀fiance — but in inheritance.

Not because pastors failed — but because a strong delusion swept across the earth as Scripture foretold.

But now, the veil is lifting.
Truth is returning.
The ancient paths are being restored.

And the Philippines is rising to answer the call.

WE DECLARE

1. The Feasts of Yahuah belong to His people forever.

Not as rituals, not as burdens, but as celebrations of covenant, identity, and truth.

2. Yahusha is the center and ful􏰃fillment of every Feast — not the abolition of them.

Fulfilled does not mean forgotten. Fulfilled does not mean erased. Fulfilled means brought to fullness.

3. We honor the example of the Apostles, especially Paul, who kept and taught the Feasts after the resurrection.

4. We reject the counterfeits, replacements, and occult mixtures introduced by man-made systems.

We return to Scripture — not tradition.

5. We restore what Yahuah commanded for all generations:

Passover, Unleavened Bread, First Fruits, Shavuot, Trumpets, Atonement, Tabernacles, the Last Great Day, and His Weekly Sabbath.

WE CALL UPON THE NATION

Pastors — to lead without fear.
Families — to teach these truths to their children.
Worship teams — to 􏰀ll the nation with songs of the Mo’edim. Congregations — to awaken to the rhythm of Heaven.
Youth and students — to rise as restorers of ancient truth.

THIS IS OUR DECLARATION

The Year of Restoration has begun —
and the Philippines will rise to restore the Biblical Feasts of Yahuah.

From Luzon to Visayas to Mindanao, from the mountains to the islands, from churches to homes,
from pastors to children —

the Philippines returns to the ancient paths. And the Remnant follows worldwide.

This is our time.
This is our calling.
This is our identity.
This is the Restoration of the Mo’edim.

Let us make this the year the Philippines — as a nation — begins to restore the Biblical Feasts and return to the Appointed Times of Yahuah.

pg. 59-60

This is quite literally Tim's declaration of war against history, geography, theology, and the Filipino people. For Tim to lead Filipinos into keeping the law, especially in partial obedience, is to lead them away from Christ and towards death. The Philippines does not need another phony, false teacher such as Timothy Jay Schwab who is The God Culture. 

Saturday, January 17, 2026

The God Culture: Mo'edim Dawning Album Review

Timothy Jay Schwab who is The God Culture and Foundations Echo Collective has released a new album. It's titled Mo'edim Dawning and is all about the Levitical Feasts. 

Mo'edim in the title serves two purposes. 1. It is the word translated feasts in the Bible. It means appointed times. 2. It's Tim's way of signifying exotic theological depth. It's not enough for him to celebrate the feasts. He celebrates the Mo'edim. The problem here is that this ersatz depth is historically untethered. It's Second Temple Judaism without the Temple.

This AI generated album is so milquetoast and repulsive I couldn't listen to the whole thing. It is worse than Celine Dion and I hate Celine Dion but at least she has a soul. The "music" is so bland and even more formulaic and derivative than CCM they should open a new Dove category for worst album of the year. Here is a million dollar idea for singer and musician Timothy Jay Schwab: write and record your own music. Or how about this, Ok Computer but the lyrics are praise and worship. Take a lesson from Radiohead and learn intelligent music can only be created by humans.

The lyrics repeat the blasé message of our hearts are on fire and we are rising up and Yahuah, not God, is great. The majority of these lyrics are about the "singer" and less about the "singer's" deity who is Tim's deity who is the binity of Yahuah and Yahusha. Tim is an avowed anti-trinitarian who thinks the Holy Spirit is likely a creation. The theology behind these lyrics is heretical as the album's purpose is to steer people into keeping the feasts which Christ has fulfilled and which we are under no obligation to keep nor could we possibly keep because they all require animal sacrifices at the temple by a Levite priest.

Probably the worst offender on this album is Happy Birthday Yahusha (Shavout). The incarnation is not a fulfillment of Shavout or the Feast of Weeks or Pentecost as it is known by Christians. Pentecost is fulfilled by the outpouring of the Holy Spirt in the upper room as written in Acts 2. Remember, Jerusalem was filled with Jews from all over the world to celebrate Pentecost. If Jesus was born on Pentecost his parents would have been in Jerusalem. The incarnation is a fulfillment of the Feast of Tabernacles because Christ tabernacled in the flesh with us (John 1:14). The title alone is enough to write this off as heresy. 

Now for the lyrics.

Happy birthday Yahusha our king
We lift our hearts and gladly sing
Born on the feast when fire came down
You wear forever the golden crown
Light of heaven, Word made flesh 
We celebrate your righteousness 
Happy birthday Yahusha our king
All creation begins to sing

Hallelujah

From dawn till dusk let praises ring
Joyful voices to you we bring
In every heart your love will (allow??)
All our hopes are lifted now

Light of heaven, Word made flesh 
We celebrate your righteousness 
Happy birthday Yahusha our king 
All creation begins to sing 
Hallelujah 
With every year we'll shout and (play?)
Happy Birthday Yahusha today
Peace and joy in the air we share in your name
We are filled with praise
I listened to this song four times to get the lyrics right and I still cannot make out two words but this is good enough to show the absolute inanity of these lyrics. Thankfully it's very short. Unfortunately it's also staccato and catchy so it's going to be in my head for a while. 



According to the credits Timothy Jay Schwab wrote the lyrics. 




Is this really the best he could do? Tim has been a "Christian" for four decades and this is the highest praise he could muster for the incarnation? A categorically inappropriate Happy Birthday song? I suppose the theological heft of Hark the Herald Angels Sing and O Come All Ye Faithful are too high a bar for Tim to reach. The opening scene of Life of Brian is more reverent than this tripe. 

Just imagine if this is what the Angels sang when they appeared to the shepherds. Imagine reducing the miracle of the virgin birth, of God tabernacling in human flesh, to a banal Happy Birthday, we celebrate your righteousness. The fact that God became man for the express purpose of being a propitiatory sacrifice is a solemn event. It is not a time to put on party hats and sing Happy Birthday. While Christ was born in the flesh he is eternally God. There is never a time when he was not. The fact that God was born of Mary also means something else Tim rejects. Mary is the mother of God.

39:26 And they do indeed embrace the harlot of Babylon taking her image found in archeology centuries before Mary was ever born and they used that image of the harlot of Babylon in their worship and call her those same titles of the ancient goddess. Mother of God. Well, that's not Mary's title, that's the ancient goddess.

The Final World Power in the 7 Ekklesias of Revelation. The Key. Answers In 2nd Esdras Part 7

Making this asinine claim shows that Tim is completely unfamiliar with the disputes of the 5th century over the nature of Jesus Christ and the necessity of calling Mary the theotokos or God bearer. The title Mother of God says less about Mary and more about Jesus Christ. Mary did not give birth to a human person, she gave birth to the second person of the Trinity who tabernacled in human flesh. The title does not mean she is the source of the divinity of Christ only that the one born from her was God. The Council of Chalcedon cleared up this debate and left the following definition:

https://www.monergism.com/definition-council-chalcedon-451-ad
...begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the virgin Mary, the mother of God, according to the manhood;...
Rather than being a title taken from a Babylonian goddess calling Mary the Mother of God or theotokos is a bulwark protecting the divinity of Jesus Christ. If one cannot confess that Mary is the Mother of God or that God was born, God died, and God rose from the dead, then one does not have a right understanding of who Jesus Christ is.

But let's get even more to the point. The Yahusha being praised in this song is not Jesus Christ. He is a figment of Tim's imagination existing as a binary with his Father Yahuah. The Bible tells us Jesus Christ IS YHWH (John 8:58 and 12:37-41) and that he is one person in a trinity along with the Father and the Holy Spirit. This album is literally a paean disguised as worship to a non-existent deity encouraging people to keep the Levitical Feasts which Jesus fulfilled and can no longer be kept today because there is no priesthood and no temple. Not only that but it's also AI generated slop. A computer cannot praise the deity be he real or fictional like Yahusha. 

This album is part of a larger package which includes three children's books and a nine-week study guide on keeping the feasts. Tim believes he is restoring these feasts by telling people to keep them. However, without a temple, without Levitical priests, and without sacrifices these feasts cannot be kept properly. Thankfully Jesus Christ has fulfilled the feasts and we are no longer obligated to keep them. To insist otherwise is to teach a false Gospel and a false Christ. 

Sunday, January 11, 2026

The God Culture: Typhoon Mental Gymnastics

In a previous article I posted a section from Fernando Pinto's journal which showed beyond all doubt that when he landed in the Lequios Islands he was in the Ryukyu Islands. Pinto said he could see Japan from where he was standing in the Lequios Islands. 

"Japan, which was the name of that big land mass outlined ahead of us"

It's a pretty open and shut case. Japan cannot be seen from the Philippines. I also wrote that I eagerly awaited what would no doubt be a gymnastic answer from Timothy Jay Schwab who is The God Culture. He did not disappoint. 

https://thegodculturephilippines.com/pinto-the-typhoon-and-the-blogger-who-can-t-read-a-storm/

Here is the start.

Pinto, the Typhoon, and the Blogger Who Can’t Read Current Events [Literally... Pun intended]

The latest blogger critique is a prime example of selective outrage masquerading as scholarship. Faced with an overwhelming body of evidence from Fernão Mendes Pinto that clearly identifies the Philippines—not Ryukyu—as the Lequios Isles, this blogger has now narrowed the battlefield to one desperate hill:

The Typhoon Drift. [Except He Forgot the Typhoon Part!]

Let’s break it down

Now for the floor routine.

🌊 Pinto’s 23-Day Drift: What He Actually Says

Pinto states that after a battle near China, his ship was caught in a massive typhoon and drifted for 23 days through an archipelago before arriving at the land he calls Lequios Grande.

“...for twenty-three days until finally, at the end of that time, our Lord brought us within sight of land...” – Pinto (Catz translation)

The blogger wants to dismiss this as proof that Pinto landed in Ryukyu, citing a translation that refers to Lequios as such. But there's a major problem:

📉 The Coordinates, Dates & Distances Are Not Reliable

Even Pinto’s translator, Rebecca Catz, openly warned that:

  • Pinto’s coordinates are often wrong.

  • His distances and dates were edited before publication.

  • His narrative was altered in its first printing.

Yet the blogger clings to these questionable elements while ignoring everything else Pinto describes. Remember, the blogger actually attempt to pawn off the manipulated text as the original Portuguese when it was not. 

🧭 The Typhoon Argument Fails Geographically

We modeled Pinto’s 23-day drift during a typhoon season, using:

  • Historical typhoon tracks 

  • Prevailing currents (Kuroshio, Luzon Strait flow) [And we did not forget there was a Typhoon, as the blogger did.]

  • Residual drift patterns after Typhoons observed in satellite-era case studies

Let's also not overlook the witchcraft being employed by an agitator who claims Pinto's account should be thrown out, yet, then, still attempts to use it to support his argument that already failed. That is a losing strategy and indefensible. We have never said so, and in fact, have reasserted the account as valid in need of testing and reconciliation citing the very details Catz demonstrating are problematic in Pinto's account. We have also pointed out many times this is not the only detail of the account and all others support the Philippine position, none support Ryukyu. The blogger forgot there was a Typhoon and asserts normal currents at that time of year which would be changed for as much as 3 weeks following a major typhoon. Oops! Again, that is witchcraft, not academic reason. This methodology will be provided to academics who meet with us, not to a fake blogger who admits his end attempt is to commit criminal defamation of our leader and our group.

Result?

A disabled ship near the China coast would be naturally pushed southwest—toward Batanes and Northern Luzon, not Ryukyu.

In fact, the drift duration matches real typhoon-driven cases, including Typhoon Wayne (1986) and historic 1927 events where vessels were displaced for 15–21 days across this same region. {ADD: In that direction?????]

And now for the final landing.

📉 The One-Criterion Trap

This critic has reduced Pinto's richly detailed account to a single metric—his mistaken belief that Japan was "ahead" of him. Even that is questionable, as translation ambiguity remains.

🔥 Bottom Line:

The blogger’s desperate defense of a single flawed reading—while discarding Pinto’s full context and the warnings of his own translator—is not academic integrity. It’s narrative control.

Oh no! Tim has fallen flat on his face by totally dismissing the sighting of Japan as being unreliable. Yet somehow all the rest of the passage is reliable. Pinto didn't actually see Japan from the Lequios Islands. So what did he see? Tim doesn't offer an alternative explanation. He also misinterprets the fact that Pinto deliberately sailed through an archipelago for 23 days before he reached the Lequios Islands and then Japan. He did not drift as if his ships were disabled and being passively carried away by the current due to a typhoon. There is no archipelago between China and the Philippines. Pinto is clearly referring to the Ryukyu Islands chain when he says they made "with full sail for the island of the Ryukyus."

I will award Tim two points for effort. He did put in the time to chart out drift currents from China to the Philippines over a 23 day period. That's a lot of hard work. Unfortunately all that work is meaningless,  irrelevant, and contradicts the text. He should have worked smarter by reading the context of the entire passage including what comes next after sighting Japan, which is that Pinto and his crew immediately arrive in Japan. There are even Japanese titles of nobility in the text. 

We proceeded on our voyage in the battered condition we were in, and three days later we were struck by a storm that blew over the land with such fierce gusts of wind that that same night we were driven out of sight of the shore. And since by then we were unable to approach it again, we were forced to make with full sail for the island of the Ryukyus where this pirate was well known to both the king and the other people there. With this in view we sailed ahead through the islands of this archipelago, but since at this time we were without a pilot, ours having been killed in the recent battle, and the northeast winds were blowing head on, and the currents were running strong against us, we went tacking with great effort from one board to the other for twenty-three days until finally, at the end of that time, our Lord brought us within sight of land. Coming in closer to see if it showed any sign of an inlet or harbor with good anchorage, we noticed a huge fire burning over to the south, almost at a level with the horizon. This led us to believe that it was probably inhabited and that there might be people there who would sell us water, which we were running short of.

As we were anchoring opposite the island in seventy fathoms of water, two small canoes with six men on board came rowing out from shore. They came alongside, and after an exchange of greetings and courtesies in their fashion, they asked us whence the junk had come. Our answer was that we had come from China, bringing merchandise to trade with them, if they would give us leave to do so. One of them replied that as long as we paid the duties that were customarily charged in Japan, which was the name of that big land mass outlined ahead of us, the nautoquim, lord of that island of would readily grant us permissionHe followed this up by Tanegashima, telling us everything else that we needed to know and showed us the port where we were supposed to anchor. 

Filled with excitement we immediately hauled in our moorings and, with the ship’s longboat at the bow, moved in to drop anchor in a little bay to the south where a large town called Miaygimá was located, from which many prows came rowing alongside with supplies of fresh food and water which we bought from them.

133
The Inquisitive Prince of Tanegashima

Hardly two hours had elapsed since we anchored in this bay of Miaygimá when the nautoquim, prince of the island of Tanegashima, accompanied by many merchants and noblemen, came out to our junk, laden with a large number of chests full of silver which they brought with them to trade. After the usual courtesies on both sides had been exchanged and he had been given assurance that it was safe to approach, he immediately drew up alongside. The moment he saw us three Portuguese on board he wanted to know what kind of people we were, for he could tell from looking at our faces and beards that we were not Chinese.

Pinto, pgs 274-275

Miaygima and Tanegashima are islands in JAPAN!

12. Tanegashima: Largest of the Osumi Islands, a group just south of Kyushu Island, Japan, part of Kagoshima Prefecture, separated from the southern tip of Kyushu by the Osumi or Van Diemen Strait. It was here, in the year 1542 or 1543, that a group of three Portuguese arrived in Japan on board a Chinese junk. They were the first Europeans to set foot on Japanese soil. That much is known for certain. What is not known for certain is that Pinto was one of that historical group of three, as he claims to be. Unlike his account of China, what he has to say about Japan is fairly accurate, yet some historians refuse to accept his version of the discovery of Japan or to accord him the honor of being among the first group of Europeans to set foot in Japan. The question still hangs fire.

13. Miaygimá: Possibly intended for Miyajima, which Pinto mentions in his letter of 5 December 1554. However, in that letter he correctly situates the island of Miyajima (or Itsukushima) off the southwest coast of Honshu, which is far from Tanegashima. (See Catz, Cartas, 45.) Lagoa (Glossário) identifies it as the island of Make-Jima or Make-Shima, off the coast of Tanegashima, which Father Schurhammer says is impossible. See Schurhammer, “Descobrimento do Japão” 21:565 n. 157.

The text says Pinto got caught in a storm off the coast of China. There is no indication this was "a massive typhoon." Pinto mentions typhoons twice in his journal. 

After a few days of navigating in the Gulf of Cochinchina under the most difficult conditions, we put into a port called Madel; and while we were there, on the feast of the Nativity of Our Lady, the eighth of September, feeling quite apprehensive about the new moon—which in that latitude often brings with it a terrible storm the Chinese call “typhoon,” accompanied by rain and high winds too furious for any ship to withstand—when for the past three or four days the skies had been lowering and showing signs of what we had been dreading, and the junks had been hurrying into the nearest haven, it was the will of the Lord that, among the many ships entering this harbor, one of them should belong to a well-known pirate by the name of Hinimilau, a Chinese heathen who had converted to Islam a short time before. 

pg. 92

And just as we came within sight of the mines of Conxinacau, at latitude forty-one and two-thirds, we were struck by a storm coming out of the south—which the Chinese call a typhoon—that closed in on us darkly with winds and rain so fierce, that it seemed like something beyond the bounds of nature. And since our ships were oar propelled, not very large, low-built, weak, and shorthanded, our situation was so precarious that we saw very little hope of being able to save ourselves, so we let ourselves roll coastwards on the waves, taking it for the lesser of two evils to be dashed against the rocks than to drown at sea.

pg. 152

Pinto describes none of the conditions typical of a typhoon regarding this storm nor does he act the way he did when he was previously caught in a typhoon which was to "let ourselves roll coastwards on the waves." On the contrary, he is able to actively and purposefully "make with full sail for the island of the Ryukyus." He was not passively drifting on the current caused by a typhoon. His ships were not disabled as Tim claims. Pinto says they were navigating AGAINST THE CURRENT.

"the currents were running strong against us, we went tacking with great effort" 

He then intentionally sets course for the Lequios Islands and actively sails through that archipelago for 23 days. While anchoring off the coast of the Lequios Islands two canoes approach and ask about the stranger's business to which Pinto says they came to trade. They said that as long as they pay the duties customary to Japan which is the name of the big land mass outlined ahead of them the nautoquim, or lord, of that island would allow it. Then Pinto and his crew immediately arrive in Japan. 

Fernando Pinto seeing Japan from the Lequios Islands isn't ONE METRIC. Neither is it a "single flawed reading" or an ambiguous, questionable translation. Seeing Japan and then IMMEDIATELY arriving in Japan is the context of the passage. The title of the chapter is "THE DISCOVERY OF JAPAN."


The five subsequent chapters are all about Pinto's adventures in Japan. He obviously sailed to the Ryukyu Islands, saw Japan outlined just ahead, and then entered Japan. The Philippines does not factor into this story in the slightest. 

It is ridiculous for Tim to take a portion of Pinto's journal seriously going so far as to chart out drift currents and yet question the reliability of Pinto's clear and unambiguous language about Japan which appears in the very next paragraph. This is olympic-level mental gymnastics worthy of Mary Lou Retton. But instead of displaying his picture on a box of Wheaties, his visage deserves to be on a box of Cocoa Puffs because Timothy Jay Schwab is cuckoo for ignoring the plain words of Fernando Pinto. 

Saturday, January 10, 2026

The God Culture: Did Pinto Shipwreck In Batanes Or Luzon?

Timothy Jay Schwab who is The God Culture is a fantastic mental gymnast. He knows how to flip and tumble and shake off the words of a text which are incompatible with his thesis. 


Recently he has been fixated on Pinto's mention of "five large islands" to the west of the Ryukyu (that is Lequios) Islands. Here is the full quote from Pinto's journal. 

This Ryukyu island is situated at twenty-nine degrees latitude. It is two hundred leagues in circumference, sixty in length, and thirty in width. The land in itself is more or less on the order of Japan, a little mountainous in some parts, but it becomes more level in the interior, where many of its lush, fertile fields are irrigated by freshwater streams which produce an endless number of fresh crops, especially wheat and rice. There are mountain ranges where they mine a great quantity of copper which, because it is so plentiful, is so cheap among these people that they load junks full of it to sell in every port of China, Lamau,* Sumbor,’ Chabaqué, Tosa,” Miyako," and Japan, with all the other islands to the south, Sestras, Goto,” Fucanxi, and Pollem. In addition, all this land of the Ryukyus has great quantities of iron, steel, lead, tin, alum, saltpeter, sulphur, honey, beeswax, sugar, and large amounts of ginger which is of a much better quality and far superior to the ginger produced in India. They also have large forests of angely wood,"" jatemar,"' poytao,’ pisu, pine, chestnut, cork oak, oak, and cedar, from which thousands of ships can be made.

To the west, there are five very large islands which have many silver mines, pearls, amber, incense, silk, rosewood, brazilwood, wild eaglewood, and large quantities of pitch," though the silk is somewhat inferior to that of China. The inhabitants of all these islands are like the Chinese, and they dress in clothes made of linen, cotton, and silk, along with some damasks that they import from Nanking. They are overly fond of food, given to the pleasures of the flesh, and have little inclination for bearing arms, which are in short supply, from which it appears that it will be very easy to conquer them. So much so that in the year 1556 there arrived in Malacca a Portuguese in the service of the grand master of Santiago" by the name of Pero Gomes de Almeida,' bringing a magnificent gift and letters from the nautoguim, prince of the island of Tanegashima, for King John III, may his soul rest in peace, which in essence amounted to an appeal for five hundred men to help him and his men conquer this Ryukyu island, in return for which he offered to pay an annual tribute of five thousand quintals of copper and one thousand of brass. Nothing ever came of this embassy because the message was sent to Portugal on board the galleon on which Manuel de Sousa de Sepulveda was shipwrecked.

Pinto, pg. 300, Rebecca Catz, translator

As of this writing Tim has published four articles about these five islands. In the first article Tim concluded the five islands are the Philippines proper. 

The Smoking Quill writes again. Pinto’s “five very large islands” were not Ryukyu. They were Philippine islands west of Batanes—the true Lequios where Pinto was shipwrecked, the Isles of Gold, the gateway to Ophir. Every resource fits the Philippines and Ryukyu fails. 

https://thegodculturephilippines.com/pinto-s-resource-test-the-five-great-islands-were-never-ryukyu/

Never mind that the Philippine Islands are SOUTH of Batanes. 

In the second article Tim analyzed a map from 1799 that mentions five islands in the Philippines that do not actually exist. He says they are "clearly a symbolic preservation of Pinto’s “Five Very Large Islands” and his shipwreck near Lequios." 

In a 1799 map engraved and published in Venice by Antonio Zatta, we find yet another historical witness to the true location of the Lequios Isles: the Philippines. Zatta plots five islands west of Batanes where none exist today, labeling the region "Il Banco d’Argento" (The Silver Bank), adjacent to the Isole di Bashee and Babuyanes—clearly a symbolic preservation of Pinto’s “Five Very Large Islands” and his shipwreck near Lequios.

https://thegodculturephilippines.com/venetian-map-confirms-pinto-s-lequios-were-the-philippines/

Why would Antonio Zatta symbolically preserve "Pinto’s “Five Very Large Islands” and his shipwreck near Lequios?" What sense does that make and what is Tim's evidence proving that is the case? It is a bizarre ad-hoc speculative assertion that Tim has literally made up whole cloth.

Tim then proceeds to restate his thesis that the Philippines proper are the five islands mentioned by Pinto.

Yes — ALL FIVE major Philippine islands you've proposed (excluding Masbate) are geographically west of Batanes, affirming Pinto's directional accuracy if we interpret his account as referring to directional progression, not mapped coordinates.

Note that this analysis says one could consider all five major Philippines Islands to be west of Batanes only if you interpret west in a certain way.  

In the third article Tim brings up an irrelevant French map from 1752.

A full 47 years before Zatta’s Venetian chart and over a century after Pinto’s famous voyage, this 1752 French map silently affirms a truth colonial revisionists tried to erase: the Lequios Isles were the Philippines.

Just west of the Bashee Isles (Batanes), the map boldly labels:

“Les 5 Isles” — The Five Islands

They are plotted where no separate islands exist today, because they were never meant as literal, isolated rocks. Instead, they memorialize Pinto’s “Five Very Large Islands” — Luzon, Palawan, Mindoro, Panay, and Mindanao — recounted in sequence after his shipwreck and trial in Batanes.

https://thegodculturephilippines.com/the-french-knew-too-les-5-isles-west-of-bashee-pinto-s-lequios/

It's kind of strange that Tim is trying to prove the major islands of the Philippines proper are the five islands mentioned by Pinto by bringing up maps which post-date Pinto and show five tiny islands that Tim admits do not exist. 

In the fourth article Tim makes a clumsy reference to Finding Nemo which is not very clever, funny, or relevant. Maybe it's a reference to the sequel Finding Dory. 


Finding Pinto — The Five Isles That Never Moved

Maps featured:

  • John SpeedA New Map of East India, 1676

  • Nicolaes Visscher I / Peter SchenkIndiae Orientalis Nova Descriptio, ca. 1700

  • Willem Janszoon BlaeuIndia quae Orientalis…, 1640

"There were five very large islands, near to where I shipwrecked..." — so recounted Fernão Mendes Pinto in his famed 16th-century travels. Colonial academia later twisted this into an implausible link to Ryukyu, far to the northeast, where no such “five large isles” exist. But the maps never lied.

Across three of the most authoritative early modern European cartographers—Speed, Visscher-Schenk, and Blaeu—we find those Five Islands unmistakably preserved, plotted west and slightly south of Bashee and Batanes, hovering in clear reference to Pinto’s original drift account.

🧭 The Verdict

Over 150 years after Pinto's voyage, these maps still plot the same five-island formation, right where the shipwreck occurred—near Batanes, adjacent to Ilocos. There was no confusion among cartographers. Only later, as colonial narrative control tightened, did Lequios begin drifting north.

https://thegodculturephilippines.com/finding-pinto----the-five-isles-that-never-moved/

In the movie Finding Nemo, a clownfish named Nemo gets lost and his father has to find him. After a series of adventures they are reunited. This does not apply to Fernando Pinto. He knew exactly where he was. It was not the Philippines. In fact, he had previously been to the Lequios Islands. 

We proceeded on our voyage in the battered condition we were in, and three days later we were struck by a storm that blew over the land with such fierce gusts of wind that that same night we were driven out of sight of the shore. And since by then we were unable to approach it again, we were forced to make with full sail for the island of the Ryukyus where this pirate was well known to both the king and the other people there. With this in view we sailed ahead through the islands of this archipelago, but since at this time we were without a pilot, ours having been killed in the recent battle, and the northeast winds were blowing head on, and the currents were running strong against us, we went tacking with great effort from one board to the other for twenty-three days until finally, at the end of that time, our Lord brought us within sight of land. Coming in closer to see if it showed any sign of an inlet or harbor with good anchorage, we noticed a huge fire burning over to the south, almost at a level with the horizon. This led us to believe that it was probably inhabited and that there might be people there who would sell us water, which we were running short of.

As we were anchoring opposite the island in seventy fathoms of water, two small canoes with six men on board came rowing out from shore. They came alongside, and after an exchange of greetings and courtesies in their fashion, they asked us whence the junk had come. Our answer was that we had come from China, bringing merchandise to trade with them, if they would give us leave to do so. One of them replied that as long as we paid the duties that were customarily charged in Japan, which was the name of that big land mass outlined ahead of us, the nautoquim, lord of that island of would readily grant us permissionHe followed this up by Tanegashima, telling us everything else that we needed to know and showed us the port where we were supposed to anchor. 

pg. 274

Pinto could see Japan from the Lequios Islands. Japan cannot be seen from Batanes. Nobody has lost these islands or is searching for them. Nobody is confused as to their location. Nobody except for Tim.

In the first paragraph cited above Pinto says the Ryukyu Islands (that is the Lequios Islands) are located at 29°N.  Tim's claim that coordinate is ambiguous and means an area between 9° and 20° does not pass muster and is fallacious ad hoc reasoning. It especially does not make sense that he claims this coordinate is ambiguous yet treats the five islands mentioned in the next paragraph as gospel truth pointing to the Philippine Archipelago. For Tim 29 is an ambiguous range between 9 and 20 while 5 is literally 5. 

Tim has decided to focus on a "resource test" to prove that the five islands must be the Philippines proper. 

The Philippines matches every resource Pinto named, in the right number of large islands, with historical and archaeological backing.

https://thegodculturephilippines.com/pinto-s-resource-test-the-five-great-islands-were-never-ryukyu/

That is to ignore the rest of the paragraph which says the following:

The inhabitants of all these islands are like the Chinese, and they dress in clothes made of linen, cotton, and silk, along with some damasks that they import from Nanking. They are overly fond of food, given to the pleasures of the flesh, and have little inclination for bearing arms, which are in short supply, from which it appears that it will be very easy to conquer them. So much so that in the year 1556 there arrived in Malacca a Portuguese in the service of the grand master of Santiago" by the name of Pero Gomes de Almeida,' bringing a magnificent gift and letters from the nautoguim, prince of the island of Tanegashima, for King John III, may his soul rest in peace, which in essence amounted to an appeal for five hundred men to help him and his men conquer this Ryukyu island

Pinto says the inhabitants of the Lequios Islands, which includes the five islands he mentions, "are like the Chinese." He also says they do not bear arms thus making them easy to conquer. He also says the prince of Tanegashima asked for help from the Portuguese to conquer the Lequios Islands! Tanegashima is a real Japanese island. When did a Japanese prince ever ask the Portuguese for help to conquer the Philippines? Never!

In a previous article I examined every reference to the Philippines in Pinto's journal. He makes a distinction between the Lequios and Luzon peoples. Luzon is the Philippines. In every instance where Luzons are mentioned they are described as hired mercenaries. Here is one example.

However, that same night, their spies captured five fishermen who confessed under torture that this was the same armada that the Achinese king had sent two months before to Tenasserim in his war with the Sornau, king of Siam, in which five thousand Luzons and Borneans, all hand-picked men, were said to be returning, under the command of a Turk by the name of Hamed Khan, nephew of the pasha of Cairo.

pg. 28

Pinto says the Lequios people "have little inclination for bearing arms, which are in short supply." They weren't warriors. That means they were not Luzons. That means Lequios is not the Philippines.

It's astounding that Tim refuses to deal directly with Pinto's journal in toto. He picks what suits him and casts doubt on everything that contradicts him. He has posted a number of articles on the topic of the Lequios Islands referencing post-dated maps, resource tests, fake Filipino etymologies, drift currents, and anything else EXCEPT for the words of Pinto. Timothy Jay Schwab has to dance around the words of Pinto because they do not support his claim that the Lequios Islands are the Philippines.

While Tim purports to cite Pinto, he actually makes up quotes.  

"There were five very large islands, near to where I shipwrecked..." — so recounted Fernão Mendes Pinto in his famed 16th-century travels. 

That is not what Pinto wrote. Here is what he wrote.

To the west, there are five very large islands

See how easy that was to use Pinto's own words? See how Tim has subtly altered the meaning of this sentence by transforming "to the west" into "near to where I shipwrecked?" How hard is it for Tim to cite Pinto accurately?

Tim's position on where Pinto was shipwrecked continues to change. At the very beginning, before Tim published his first book, he was clear that Luzon was the main Lequios Island where Pinto shipwrecked. 

Clue#25: Philippines is Ophir: Magellan, Pinto, Barbosa, King of Spain, Cabot KNEW - Ophir, Tarshish
6:15 Pinto even goes as far as to give the exact location latitude of the main Lequios Island as modern-day Luzon Philippines in fact if you follow his directions exactly and we'll do that later you will end up in Northwest Luzon or Ilocos specifically

But now Tim says Pinto shipwrecked in Batanes while Luzon has been relegated to one of the five islands west of Lequios Island. 

However, he failed to even read our position as Pinto described where he was shipwrecked and that was Batanes which is extremely fertile as well. 

https://thegodculturephilippines.com/testing-pinto-s-accuracy-a-further-geographic-reassessment-of-lequios-lucones-and-latitude-drift/

Tim will likely plead that his evolving position is evidence of his transparency and academic honesty. That is hogwash!

Tim's evolving position is indicative of uncertainty and deflection not transparency and honesty. In his book The Search For King Solomon's Treasure Tim only dealt with Pinto's alleged coordinate of 9N20, which he cited not from Pinto but from J.G. Cheock. He did not engage with Pinto's journal at all. There are no quotes from Pinto in his book. Tim claims otherwise.

As we have repeatedly done, we continue to deepen our research, cite primary sources, and allow truth to speak for itself.

https://thegodculturephilippines.com/ilha-de-fuego-was-not-in-ryukyu-etymology-geography-pinto-s-real-island-of-fire/

1. Claim: "You Never Cited Pinto’s Journal"

False. We have referenced both the original Portuguese text and the Rebecca Catz translation of Pinto's Peregrinação throughout our Sourcebook, blog series, and video documentation. The Sourcebook includes full citation and quotation from both Catz and Portuguese excerpts, including the segment containing the "nine and twenty" reference, geographic features, and descriptions of the island Pinto encountered.

https://thegodculturephilippines.com/testing-pinto-s-accuracy-a-further-geographic-reassessment-of-lequios-lucones-and-latitude-drift/

Neither of those claims is truthful. Here is Tim's Sourcebook citation of Pinto.

Notice the conspicuous absence of any citation from Fernando Pinto. Instead Tim cites J.G. Cheock who cites Pinto albeit erroneously substituting 9N20 for 29°N.

Tim is on record denying the necessity of primary sources. 

https://youtu.be/EscrM4o-h4M
17:18 However a Pharisee looks at that and scoffs. "Heh! Well you could have used a better source. Why is your font so small on that screen? That one quote doesn't say that!" Though it always does say exactly what we represent by the way because it always vets, every single challenge has. "That map that shows those islands southeast of China's not really showing southeast of China. That's, well, India." Huh? No it's southeast of China. That's what the maps shows, duh. "And that map, and that map, and those directions, and those directions, and aww that font should be larger and yaw you should have quoted that differently, and..." 
I mean that's the kind of stuff that you get for going out, stepping out on a limb, and doing the research and telling people what is truth. And we prove it.  Those same people don't even bother to actually review the whole case. No. No, no. They'll watch one brief video or a few brief videos and then go and just ramble on and on and on.  And they are absolutely ignorant.  They don't even know what we prove, what we don't prove but all along they'll say "Ah see you didn't prove that." Well how will you know what we prove? You didn't even review the case. But it doesn't matter because it's not their point. They throw it all out in ignorance, haven't even reviewed the case yet they know because they know what we're going to prove because they have what basis? Absolutely none.  
"You used a font too small! Throw it out!"  Really? "You quoted a secondary source citing the original" oh which happens to be true and in representation actually match the original? Duh! I mean could you be more ridiculous? Yet we get all of this.

It is only when I brought up Pinto mentioning five large islands being to the West of the Lequios Islands that Tim bothered to discuss them. It is only when I brought up that Pinto could see Japan from his position in the Lequios Islands that Tim bothered to discuss it. Tim's position has evolved because I posted significant excerpts from Pinto's journal of which he was unaware and which contradict him, not because of long-time, consistent research on his part. Tim should have utilized the entire account in Pinto's journal from the beginning. Primary sources are very important. Why wasn't he talking about Pinto's five islands being the Philippines years ago? Why only now is he concocting fake Filipino etymologies for place names in Pinto's account? Why only now is he conducting a resource test to prove the Lequios Islands are the Philippines? Why has he ignored what Pinto wrote until now? Did he read the text and think those details weren't important? Why are they important now? The simple reason is that Tim was never familiar with Pinto's journal. His lack of citations from and engagement with the journal is proof of that. The alternative, that he was familiar with Pinto's journal but did not think it worth discussing, is even more confounding.

Rather than engage with Pinto he relied on a fabricated nonsense coordinate of 9N20 falsely attributed to Pinto by J.G. Cheock. It is I am who picking up the slack for this man who is unwilling to thoroughly examine Pinto's full account. Tim's focus remains on irrelevant maps, modern day resource tests, and fake Filipino etymology. Here is another fake Filipino etymology that is a real laugh riot. 

🪶 Smoking Quill Footnote: “Where Is Sipautor?” He Asked… 

A blogger recently mocked the reference to “Sipautor, Batanes” as if it were an invented or laughable name. He fails to address there is no Sipautor, Ryukyu. 

But had he paused to ask—or read with understanding—he might have discovered: 

  • “Sipa” is the national foot game of the Philippines, and is specifically played in Batanes by children in open fields. 

  • “Utor” is a Tagalog word meaning the burning of fields—a traditional slash-and-burn agricultural practice. 

Put them together, and “Sipautor” is likely a local place-name describing an area in Batanes where children played Sipa in cleared (burnt) farmland—a culturally accurate, even beautiful, etymology.

https://thegodculturephilippines.com/testing-pinto-s-accuracy-a-further-geographic-reassessment-of-lequios-lucones-and-latitude-drift/

According to Tim, Sipautor is a burned field where children played games. But according to Pinto Sipautor was a town of 500 households with a pagoda!

Close to sundown we reached a good-sized village of over five hundred house-holds called Sipautor, where we were immediately placed in one of the temples of their worship, a pagoda that was surrounded by a very high wall, and put under guard of over a hundred men, who could be heard shouting and beating the drums throughout the night, during which each one of us got as much rest as the time and circumstances permitted.

pg. 289

Where are the ancient pagodas in the Batanes or the rest of the Philippines? Did Tim bother to read this section or is my article mentioning Sipautor his primary source? Look at how the words of Pinto crush Timothy Jay Schwab who is The God Culture.