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

Sunday, March 8, 2026

The God Culture: 100 Lies About the Philippines: Lie #48: Maharlika Is A Hebrew Word

Welcome back to 100 lies The God Culture teaches about the Philippines. Today's lie concerns Timothy Jay Schwab's claim that Maharlika is a Hebrew word. As we shall see that is simply not true. 



Tim teaches this lie in his videos. 


Maharlika Origin. Is the Philippines Changing it's Name? Solomon's Gold Series - Part 6B  

1:06:01  The real  complete history of the Philippines as the land of Ophir and a Lost Tribes location demonstrates a direct Hebrew etymology. Maharlika is Bride of Messiah as some may term the Bride of Christ and the land of the Lost Tribes of Israel. Yes, we do prove all of that. 

Tim also makes this claim in his book The Search for King Solomon's Treasure. 

The Search for Solomon's Treasure, pgs. 192-193


Maharlika:

Former Name Associated with the Philippines
Hebrew: mahar: מהר: to acquire by paying a purchase price, endow, surely, to bargain (for a wife), i.e. To wed. [238]
Hebrew: lecha: l’cha: lekha: לך: to/for/of you (indicating possession). ]239[
Our Interpretation: His Bride Purchased With A Price

We all know this as a reference to His ekklesia in the last days. Very interesting. There are linguists who represent the general academic position on this word originating in the Sanskrit as Mahardhika. No doubt it seems sort of close, but here is the challenge to that thinking. They have not followed the word’s migrations and evolution which requires one skipping and going back a generation and then changing the word and somehow we are supposed to believe that is logical etymologically.

This word migrated in use to Indonesia and Malaysia as Merdeka not Mahardhika. That word then travelled into Mindanao and was in use as Merdeka but not Mahardhika. However, we are then told we must believe that it is logical to say that the Filipinos took this word back to it’s origin in Sanskrit and made it longer back to Mahardhika and then, transformed it into Maharlika with no historical basis in the slightest yet it is a direct Hebrew word when one audits it. We find it far more logical to acknowledge the connection to Israel and the Hebrew origin of Ophir than to execute such gymnastics which never relate.

How is it that Maharlika and Guimaras both lead in Hebrew to the Bride of Messiah? We will cover this in the prophecy chapter and then, all will come into focus. Yah’s people are indeed in the Philippines. Some of these words have the same meaning in Philippine languages and Hebrew.

Tim claims Maharlika is a compound word composed of the Hebrew words "mahar" and "lecha." Mahar is Strongs #4117.


Solomon's Treasure Sourcebook, pg. 190

Oddly enough H4117 is only used in the Bible twice in a single verse! However, there is another "mahar" which is Strong's #4116.


https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/h4116/kjv/wlc/0-1/

This word is used 64 times in 60 verses. It has nothing to do with marriage but means hastily and is translated in that manner every single time albeit using different synonyms. Is Tim unaware of this?  Or did he simply pass it over as not convenient for his thesis that Filipinos are Hebrews?

If Maharlika is a Hebrew compound word how is he sure mahar is Strong's H4117 and not H4116? He does not tell us. He doesn't even mention this word. That is dishonest. 

Tim's interpretation of Maharlika as Bride of Messiah is also theologically unsound. The only Bride of Christ is the church, those united to Jesus Christ through faith, not the Lost Tribes of Israel. And what sense does it make that a single class of people was named The Bride of Christ? None.

The fact is Maharlika is not a Hebrew word. It is a native Filipino word derived from Sanskrit. Crucial to understanding the etymology of Maharlika is how that word has been used to describe a class of people in the Philippines. 

Fransiscan missionary Juan de Plascencia is the first to mention the maharlika class. He does so in his book On The Customs of the Taglogs. Tim mentions him in his video but brushes him off as being an untrustworthy Jesuit. 


No, the Jesuits are not "the origin of the narrative." Juan de Plascencia was a Franciscan who wrote about the customs of native Filipinos. Native Filipinos are the origin of the narrative. But Tim does not care about accuracy. What is his point anyway? Are we supposed to believe Juan de Plascencia  made up the word and the definition? Here is what he wrote concerning the Maharlika. 


The Philippines Islands 1493-1803, vol. 7. pgs. 174, 177-178

In addition to the chiefs, who corresponded to our knights, there were three castes: nobles, commoners, and slaves. The nobles were the free-born whom they call maharlica. They did not pay tax or tribute to the dato, but must accompany him in war, at their own expense.

In these three classes, those who are maharlicas on both the father's and mother's side continue to be so forever; and if it happens that they should become slaves, it is through marriage, as I shall soon explain. If these maharlicas had children among their slaves, the children and their mothers became free; if one of them had children by the slave-woman of another, she was compelled, when pregnant, to give her master half of a gold tael, because of her risk of death, and for her inability to labor during the pregnancy. In such a case half of the child was free—namely, the half belonging to the father, who supplied the child with food. If he did not do this, he showed that he did not recognize him as his child, in which case the latter was wholly a slave. If a free woman had children by a slave, they were all free, provided he were not her husband.

If two persons married, of whom one was a maharlica and the other a slave, whether namamahay or sa guiguilir, the children were divided: the first, whether male or female, belonged to the father, as did the third and fifth; the second, the fourth, and the sixth fell to the mother, and so on. In this manner, if the father were free, all those who belonged to him were free; if he were a slave, all those who belonged to him were slaves; and the same applied to the mother. If there should not be more than one child he was half free and half slave. The only question here concerned the division, whether the child were male or female. Those who became slaves fell under the category of servitude which was their parent's, either namamahay or sa guiguilir. If there were an odd number of children, the odd one was half free and half slave. I have not been able to ascertain with any certainty when or at what age the division of children was made, for each one suited himself in this respect. Of these two kinds of slaves the sa guiguilir could be sold, but not the namamahay and their children, nor could they be transferred. However, they could be transferred from the barangay by inheritance, provided they remained in the same village.

In Juan de Plascencia's narrative Maharlika means a free-born noble. That contradicts Tim's claim  Juan de Plascencia said they were not nobles. He also writes that this status was inherited through birth and marriage which contradicts Tim's claims. Did he even read what Juan de Plascencia wrote? It seems not. How does that correspond to Tim's alleged etymology of Maharlika meaning The Bride of Messiah? Why would free-born nobles be called Bride of Messiah? Oh, I know. Filipinos forgot their Hebrew heritage and this name is lost to time only for Timothy Jay Schwab to restore this lost knowledge.

The fact is Tim has not proven anything. He has asserted a false etymology based on his false history of the Philippines being a location of The Lost Tribes of Israel. But it turns out "mahar" has two meanings. The one Tim employs is used rarely and he does not even consider the more common word. It is evident he did not read what Juan de Plascencia wrote about the Maharlika. His etymology does not explain why the Maharlika were described as free nobles. Maharlika as a Hebrew word is simply one more lie taught by Timothy Jay Schwab who is The God Culture. 

Saturday, March 7, 2026

The God Culture: What Is Covenant?

Having looked at the definition of faith as given by Timothy Jay Schwab who is The God Culture let's take a look at his definition of covenant. Both faith and covenant relate to one another. It is by faith one is grafted into the covenant. But as we saw previously, Tim defines faith as works which means one has to work, be obedient, to be in the covenant. 


What Is Covenant?

 

FOUNDATIONS
What Is Covenant? (Biblical, non-denominational framing)

Here is the first problem. It sounds like Tim is being neutral. Like he is gung-ho for Sola Scriptura. Alas, that is not the case. His rejection of "non-denominational framing" is really a rejection of the Church. Tim is on record calling the Church the synagogue of Satan and claims he is here to restore the truth. 

The synagogue of satan was installed and their doctrines as what we call the early church today but the true early church was wiped out. 

New Sabbath Series Trailer
Any Statement of Faith or creed from the Church amounts to Freemasonry.

So how then do we govern ourselves? Who do we follow? What church do we attend? Is there a denomination that gets this right?

You will never find denominations in scripture. His ekklesia cannot be broken into such. In our age, there are a Remnant of believers only. It is not 1.5 billion but a few in terms of the population of the world. They are one and defined as keeping His commandments. Those come from the Bible as should all of our doctrine.

Any organization one enters is a creation of men. You will notice just about all of them attempt to boil down their theology into a Statement of Faith or Mission Statement of sort. These are meaningless as any Statement of Faith that does not include every letter of the Word is no such. The origin of such practice is freemasonry as the Bible never says to create a Statement of Faith. You will find every False Prophet comes from the church within and has a great resume and great sounding Mission Statement. That is Pharisaism not Bible. If one can whittle their faith down to a sentence or paragraph, they are extremely shallow.

Rest: The Case For Sabbath, pg. 416

That is all more than a little ironic since this definition amounts to a Statement of Faith. Tim is not only using the scriptures but he is using his own words to explain them. That is not much different from the Westminster Confession of Faith which explains doctrines and provides the Bible passages which prove those doctrines. 

Covenant is the relational framework Elohim established from creation to govern His kingdom, define humanity’s purpose, and restore what was broken by sin. It is not a contract between equals, but a binding oath initiated by Elohim, rooted in His character, promises, and authority.
In Scripture, covenant means:
Elohim binds Himself by oath (Gen 15; Gen 22:16–18; Ps 89:3–4)
Humans are invited into loyalty, obedience, and trust, not negotiation
Blessing flows from alignment; curse from rebellion (Deut 28)
Covenant is always relational before it is legal
From the beginning:
Creation itself is covenantal (Gen 1–2: order, authority, boundaries)
Adam’s role was priest-king stewardship under covenant
Sin is covenant violation, not merely rule-breaking 
Throughout Scripture, covenant is progressive, not replaced:
Adamic → Noahic → Abrahamic → Mosaic → Davidic
All find their fulfillment and confirmation in Messiah, not cancellation

This is partially correct. The covenant God has established with men is initiated by Him. However, man is not merely invited into the covenant. God unilaterally enters into covenant with whomsoever he will, namely the elect. To make the covenant a matter of invitation tramples on the doctrine of God's decree and sovereign election. He chooses whomsoever he will and passes by all the rest. He chose the nation of Israel above all other nations.

Deut 10:15 Only the LORD had a delight in thy fathers to love them, and he chose their seed after them, even you above all people, as it is this day.

Amos 3:2 You only have I known of all the families of the earth: therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities.

Every Israelite child was automatically a member of the covenant God made with that nation. The sign of the covenant was circumcision. Of course while every member of the nation was part of the visible covenant people not all were actually members of the elect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel (Romans 9:6). Meaning the covenant is much deeper than blood or promises of land.

Here is the covenant given to Abraham. 

Genesis 17:1 And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect.

2 And I will make my covenant between me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly.

3 And Abram fell on his face: and God talked with him, saying,

4 As for me, behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations.

5 Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of many nations have I made thee.

6 And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee.

7 And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.

8 And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.

9 And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations.

10 This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.

11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.

12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.

13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.

14 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.

Note that the promise is given to Abraham's seed. Who is that? Ultimately it is Jesus Christ. 

Gal 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

In his definition of covenant Tim has left out Jesus Christ. He has omitted the covenant between the Father and the Son. 

Isaiah 53:10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.

11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.

12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

This is called the pactum salutis or the covenant of redemption. In this eternal, pretemporal covenant, the Father appoints the Son to redeem the elect. That covenant is foundational to understanding the Gospel and the covenant of grace. However, this is no place to discuss it as the topic is too immense. See Herman Witsius' two volumes On the Economy of the Covenants for a thorough discussion of covenantal theology. 

The so-called “New Covenant” is not new in content, but renewed, internalized, and written on the heart (Jer 31; Ezek 36), just as the prophets foretold.
Covenant explains why Messiah came, what sin is, what obedience means, and how restoration works.
Without covenant:
The Gospel becomes abstract
The Kingdom becomes vague
Grace becomes disconnected from purpose
With covenant:
The story is unified
Messiah is correctly understood
Scripture speaks with one voice
Shabbat Shalom. Yah Bless.

The end of this definition, that the covenant is necessary to understand why Christ came, is correct but the first part is woefully wrong. Tim says there is no new covenant. There is only a renewal of the old! That's not what the Bible says. 

Hebrews 8:6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.

12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.

13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away. 

Hebrews 9:15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. 

And if Tim does not wish to listen to Paul let him hear Christ. 
Matt 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Yes, the new covenant is indeed...NEW! The old has been fulfilled and is no longer in force. The entire purpose of the old covenant, namely the law, was 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.

Tim cites Jeremiah 31 in support of the covenant being not new but renewed. However, Jeremiah disagrees with him. 

Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:

33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

Tim is correct in noting that the covenant is internalized with the law being written on the heart but that only undermines his contention that it is renewed. The old covenant was with ONE NATION, Israel. Yes, gentiles could be grafted in but the covenant was with that one nation only.  The new covenant is with the world, the gentiles, all those whom Christ has elected to salvation and who he will graft into Himself by regenerating them, drawing them, and giving them the gift of faith to believe the promises. But Tim teaches we are to keep the law and the measure of our law keeping is what grafts us into Christ, makes us righteous, and keeps us in covenant with Him. 

20:05 For us to not keep his law, uh-oh here it comes, is also to not love Him. As if we love Him what do we do? John 15, keep my commandments. Even in revelation what are they found doing at the very end the end times remnant? Keeping His commandments, His law.  Do we love him? This is a covenant folks and it is  the way it works. See that's the way he defines this. It's a covenant relationship. This is intimacy with the Creator.  He loves you that much. He wants to be intimate with you in relationship. Are we in relationship with Him or not?
Sabbath Series: Part 3B. Messiah Kept the Sabbath.

Thus law keeping is the essence of the covenant according to Tim. 

A more Biblical definition of the covenant is to be found in the Westminster Confession of faith. 

I. The distance between God and the creature is so great, that although reasonable creatures do owe obedience unto him as their Creator, yet they could never have any fruition of him, as their blessedness and reward, but by some voluntary condescension on God’s part, which he hath been pleased to express by way of covenant.

II. The first covenant made with man was a covenant of works, wherein life was promised to Adam, and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience.

III. Man by his fall having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called the covenant of grace: wherein he freely offered unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in him, that they may be saved, and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto life, his Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe.

IV. This covenant of grace is frequently set forth in the Scripture by the name of a testament, in reference to the death of Jesus Christ, the testator, and to the everlasting inheritance, with all things belonging to it, therein bequeathed.

V. This covenant was differently administered in the time of the law, and in the time of the gospel: under the law it was administered by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb, and other types and ordinances delivered to the people of the Jews, all fore-signifying Christ to come, which were for that time sufficient and efficacious, through the operation of the Spirit, to instruct and build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah, by whom they had full remission of sins, and eternal salvation, and is called the Old Testament.

VI. Under the gospel, when Christ the substance was exhibited, the ordinances in which this covenant is dispensed, are the preaching of the Word, and the administration of the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper; which, though fewer in number, and administered with more simplicity and less outward glory, yet in them it is held forth in more fullness, evidence, and spiritual efficacy, to all nations, both Jews and Gentiles; and is called the New Testament. There are not, therefore, two covenants of grace differing in substance, but one and the same under various dispensations.

There are only two covenants of God made with man. One is the covenant of works made in the Garden of Eden which Adam broke when he ate the forbidden fruit. Because Adam is our federal head all men are subject to this covenant and its penalty which is death. The second is the covenant of grace made to all of God's elect people through faith in Christ. This covenant was administered differently in times past but is now revealed in its final form under Jesus Christ. All of the law including the sacrifices and ordinances pointed to Him and are now fulfilled and abrogated. 

Tim's definition of covenant is not Biblical at all. It leads one away from trust and faith in the promises of God to trust in one's own works instead. It also presents a false view of the new covenant as being a renewal of the old. Tim’s covenant is actually a repackaged Covenant of Works. Ultimately there is nothing but heresy in this definition. The fact that it sounds good on its face is what makes this poisoned apple so dangerous. 

Sunday, March 1, 2026

The God Culture: What Is Faith - Biblically?

Timothy Jay Schwab who is The God Culture has been posting the definitions of what he considers to be foundational doctrines. What is the Sabbath, what is Israel, what is the Gospel? But in this article I shall dissect his definition of faith. 


What Is Faith?

FOUNDATIONS
What Is Faith—Biblically?
Faith in Scripture is not optimism, emotion, or mental agreement.
Biblical faith is trust proven by obedience.

The debate of faith versus works is one that has raged since the time of Christ. But Tim is the only person I know who has defined faith AS works! For Tim faith isn't just trust, it is trust proven by obedience. Trust in what? He does not say. Obedience to what? Well, Tim is very adamant in his teachings it is obedience to the law.  

From the beginning, faith was never defined by words alone.
Genesis 15:6 (KJV)
And he believed in Yahuah; and he counted it to him for righteousness.
Abram’s faith was credited as righteousness before Sinai, before Israel, and before any national identity. Faith was already covenantal—anchored in trust and submission to Yahuah. 
The prophets affirmed the same definition:
Habakkuk 2:4 (KJV)
The just shall live by his faith.
Faith is not static belief.
It is something one lives.

Now, this may seem orthodox but it is not. Tim does not actually believe faith makes anyone righteous. Abraham was righteous because he kept the law. 

16:44 Abraham kept the law and the sabbath. And so did Isaac and Jacob.  I mean how can they be called righteous if there was no law by which they could be judged as righteous? The very notion is ridiculous from the start.

Sabbath Series: Introduction Commentary Only

What law you might ask? Why the very law which came 430 years after the promise given to Abraham (Galatians 3:17) and was revealed on Sinai to Moses. Tim gets this doctrine from Jubilees which says the patriarchs kept that same law before it was revealed. In fact, the law is what redeems us!
19:30 So this is another example that we aren't to just have faith in Yahusha. That’s not enough. That’s not it.  No, no, no, no. We are to keep His commandments.
Sabbath Series: Part 5: The End Times Sabbath
40:11 The law is what redeems us.
The Law of Sin and Death. What is it? NOT The Law of Moses! WHAT DID PAUL SAY?"
So, any notion of faith Tim has necessarily includes law keeping.  
Scripture then defines faith clearly—not as imagination, but as confidence that results in action:
Hebrews 11:1 (KJV)
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
Hebrews 11 does not praise belief without action. Every example acts, obeys, builds, leaves, offers, or endures. Faith is demonstrated by movement in alignment with Yahuah’s will.
James makes this unmistakable:
James 2:17 (KJV)
Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
Biblically, works do not replace faith—they reveal it. Obedience does not compete with faith—it confirms it.
Faith is action affirmed in Paul (whom James never rebuked but agreed) who said:
Ephesians 2:10 (KJV)
Created in Yahusha unto good works... that we should walk in them (act).
James 2:17 (KJV)
But faith which worketh by love.
Paul. James and all the Apostles agreed on this.
Yahusha taught the same reality:
John 5:19 (KJV)
The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do…
Faith follows.
Faith listens.
Faith obeys.
The Biblical Conclusion
Faith is not intellectual assent.
Faith is not inherited.
Faith is not claimed by title, nor by saying a prayer alone.
Faith is covenant trust expressed through obedience.

This section is not much different from the Roman Catholics or the Eastern Orthodox who teach that faith is best defined as faithfulness which is expressed through works. All three (Tim, the RC, and the EO) make the category error of confusing saving faith which justifies versus sanctification which is the natural outworking of our saving faith. I don't believe I have ever heard Tim discuss the doctrine of justification. 

Tim has not defined faith Biblically at all. More importantly he has not even discussed the OBJECT of faith which is Jesus Christ. Why would he do omit something so important? He has only discussed the results of faith, presumably in Christ. He also appears to think that anyone can exercise faith by being obedient. Has he forgotten that all men are dead in sins, objects of wrath, blinded in their minds, not seeking God, and cannot come to Jesus Christ on their own? Jesus Himself said no man can come to Him! 

John 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father. 

No man can come to Christ except he is drawn by and it is GIVEN UNTO HIM of the Father. That is because man is dead in sins. We need to be regenerated or quickened. And then faith is GIVEN TO US. Faith is a gift, it is not a work or something we produce. 

Ephesians 2:5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)

6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:

7 That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.

8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

Ephesians 2 is a great chapter about faith and yet Tim only cited verse 10 about good works. He has purposefully left out all the crucial information about that faith which he is attempting to define Biblically. 

Let's take a look at two documents that do define faith Biblically. The first is the Canons of Dort, Heads 3/4 Article 14. 
In this way, therefore, faith is a gift of God, not in the sense that it is offered by God for people to choose, but that it is in actual fact bestowed on them, breathed and infused into them. Nor is it a gift in the sense that God bestows only the potential to believe, but then awaits assent—the act of believing—by human choice; rather, it is a gift in the sense that God who works both willing and acting and, indeed, works all things in all people and produces in them both the will to believe and the belief itself.

https://www.crcna.org/welcome/beliefs/confessions/canons-dort#toc-the-third-and-fourth-main-points-of-doctrine

The second is Article 14 of the Westminster Confession of Faith.

1. The grace of faith, whereby the elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls, is the work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts, and is ordinarily wrought by the ministry of the Word, by which also, and by the administration of the sacraments, and prayer, it is increased and strengthened.

2. By this faith, a Christian believeth to be true whatsoever is revealed in the Word, for the authority of God himself speaking therein; and acteth differently upon that which each particular passage thereof containeth; yielding obedience to the commands, trembling at the threatenings, and embracing the promises of God for this life, and that which is to come. But the principal acts of saving accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life, by virtue of the covenant of grace.

3. This faith is different in degrees, weak or strong; may be often and many ways assailed and weakened, but gets the victory; growing up in many to the attainment of a full assurance through Christ, who is both the author and finisher of our faith.

https://thewestminsterstandard.org/the-westminster-confession/#Chapter%20XIV

Both of those definitions are Biblical and say the same thing. Namely, faith is a gift worked in our hearts by the Holy Spirit. 

In his definition Tim refers to Hebrews 11. But after listing all the many great men of faith and their deeds Paul says:

Hebrews 12:1 Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us,

2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

The WCF notes that by faith we do yield obedience but the principal acts of faith consist not in obedience but in "accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life, by virtue of the covenant of grace." This faith is worked in us fully by Christ who is the author and finisher of our faith.  That is a far cry from the doctrine Tim has proposed which lacks an object in which faith is to trust.

Tim's followers will of course drink his definition of faith quite gladly and even those who know him not yet stumble upon it might say amen. But Tim's doctrine of faith betrays an erroneous theology, Christology, anthropology, and soteriology. Man is dead in sins, God must regenerate him and draw Him to Christ, and the Spirit works faith in man so that he is born again and can believe in the good news Christ brings. That is the Biblical definition of faith. Tim's definition of faith, which has not Christ for its object, robs the believer of assurance because it makes salvation dependent on the quality of their own "proven obedience" rather than the finished work of Christ.

Saturday, February 21, 2026

The God Culture: ChatGPT Analyzes Tim's Claims About Fernando Pinto

 Timothy Jay Schwab who is The God Culture has made it very clear that to even suggest he did not read the books he cites is to not represent the truth. 

Please note that defamatory and harassing attack blogs employing propaganda do not represent the extensive collection of credible data that underpins The God Culture's research. All our published books include comprehensive bibliographies for verification. One claiming we do not even read these sources, and did not even try to prove, when we quote and explain them in a massive number of pages, is clearly not one representing the truth. The fact they have to explain why one should not read the position, already tells one much about their intentions, as they have no adherence to the truth. That is the behavior of weak-minded individuals.

https://thegodculturephilippines.blogspot.com/2025/03/the-god-culture-thegodculturephilippine.html

As I noted that means Tim has read the sources he cites and is familiar with their contents. Therefore if Tim claims one thing about a source he cites and it actually says something completely different that means he is lying. And we are not talking about matters of interpretation but matters of fact. Because Tim is very adamant he is not lying I will not be referring to him as a liar. Instead I am going to run two paragraphs through ChatGPT and see how that A.I. chatbot analyses them.

The first paragraph is from Tim's book The Search For King Solomon's Treasure where he claims when Fernando Pinto was shipwrecked in the Lequios Islands he was at coordinates 9N20.

The second paragraph is from Pinto's journal where he writes he was shipwrecked in the Lequios Islands at "nine and twenty degrees."

Solomon's Treasure, pg. 163

Contemporary to Magellan, Ferdinand Pinto classified the Lequios and Chinese as the wealthiest in the Orient trading in gold and silver especially. He defines the Lequios Islands as an archipelago, not Taiwan, as well as a separate country. He also differentiates the Lequios as not Japan, China, Indonesia nor Malaysia but in between those. Pinto also travelled to the Lequios Islands from Malaysia headed North which he placed in the modern Philippines specifically on 9N20.  

 

In this manner we departed from Pungor the capital City of the Island of Lequios, of which I will here make a brief relation, to the end that if it shall one day please God to inspire the Portugal Nation, principally for the exaltation and increase of the Catholick faith, and next for the great benefit that may redound thereof, to undertake the Conquest of this Island, they may know where first to begin, as also the commodities of it, and the easiness of this Conquest. We must understand then that this Island of Lequios, scituated in nine and twenty degrees, is two hundred leagues in circuit, threescore in length, and thirty in bredth.

Pinto, pg. 188 

In this case assessing Tim's familiarity with Pinto's journal is a little tricky. According to the The Search For King Solomon's Treasure Sourcebook he is not citing from Pinto but from J.G. Cheock. That would mean Tim is familiar with and has read J.G. Cheock and he is not familiar with nor has he read the journal of Fernando Pinto.

Perhaps one could argue Tim is not lying because he cites 9N20 from Cheock and not from Pinto who writes 29. But then again Tim claims that the secondary sources he cites always agree with the primary sources they cite.

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.

You quoted a secondary source citing the originaloh which happens to be true and in representation actually match the original? Duh! I mean could you be more ridiculous?

https://youtu.be/EscrM4o-h4M

In this case Cheock, the secondary source, does not agree with Pinto, the primary source, which means Tim is wrong about having vetted this citation. Let's simply take Tim's word about having read and being familiar with all his sources and assume that he has not read Pinto because he did not cite Pinto but he has read Cheock because he does cite Cheock. In that case Tim is not a liar per se but a lazy researcher for sure. What about his claim that all his secondary sources have been vetted and match the originals? Well, that is obviously not true. Does not telling the truth make Tim a liar? 

You can read my analysis of the paragraphs posted above here. But what does ChatGPT have to say about these two paragraphs? Here are the non-biased, non-slanted, neutral prompts: "analyze this paragraph" and "compare that paragraph to this one from Pinto's journal."

analyze this paragraph: Contemporary to Magellan, Ferdinand Pinto classified the Lequios and Chinese as the wealthiest in the Orient trading in gold and silver especially. He defines the Lequios Islands as an archipelago, not Taiwan, as well as a separate country. He also differentiates the Lequios as not Japan, China, Indonesia nor Malaysia but in between those. Pinto also travelled to the Lequios Islands from Malaysia headed North which he placed in the modern Philippines specifically on 9N20. 
ChatGPT said:

This paragraph attempts to present Ferdinand Pinto’s geographical and ethnographic classification of the “Lequios” in relation to other Asian peoples and regions. Here's a detailed analysis:


Clarity and Coherence

  • The paragraph presents several ideas but lacks smooth transitions and clear structure. It jumps between topics—wealth, geography, identity—without clearly tying them together.

  • The sentence structure is somewhat choppy and at times ambiguous, particularly in phrases like “not Taiwan, as well as a separate country,” which is confusing in its coordination.


Content and Claims

  1. “Contemporary to Magellan, Ferdinand Pinto…”

    • Establishes the timeframe, correctly situating Pinto in the 16th century.

    • However, saying he was contemporary to Magellan is a bit misleading. Pinto was born in 1509 and Magellan died in 1521; Pinto’s significant travels occurred after Magellan’s death.

  2. “classified the Lequios and Chinese as the wealthiest in the Orient trading in gold and silver especially.”

    • This is an important observation about economic perceptions, likely drawn from Pinto’s Peregrinação.

    • However, it could benefit from a clearer grammatical construction and citation if used in academic writing.

  3. “He defines the Lequios Islands as an archipelago, not Taiwan, as well as a separate country.”

    • This sentence is confusing:

      • Does “not Taiwan” mean he excludes Taiwan from the Lequios Islands?

      • “as well as a separate country” is grammatically disjointed—it’s unclear whether the “separate country” refers to the Lequios Islands or another subject.

  4. “He also differentiates the Lequios as not Japan, China, Indonesia nor Malaysia but in between those.”

    • This tries to emphasize that the Lequios are neither of the major known Asian nations of the time but somewhere geographically “in between.”

    • The phrase “not Japan, China, Indonesia nor Malaysia” is awkward—“neither...nor” or “not...or” constructions would be cleaner.

  5. “Pinto also travelled to the Lequios Islands from Malaysia headed North which he placed in the modern Philippines specifically on 9N20.”

    • This presents a significant geographical claim: that Pinto located the Lequios in the area of 9°20′N, which would be in the central Philippines, near Bohol or Cebu.

    • However, this is a contentious interpretation, as “Lequios” has often been associated with the Ryukyu Islands (Okinawa).

    • The sentence could be improved by making it clearer that this is an interpretation of Pinto’s account, not necessarily an uncontested fact.


Historical and Interpretive Issues

  • The identity and location of the “Lequios” have long been debated. Some scholars associate them with the Ryukyu Islands (modern-day Okinawa), not the Philippines.

  • Claiming that Pinto placed them in the modern Philippines, especially at a specific latitude, is a strong assertion that requires evidence—likely a modern reinterpretation of his texts rather than a direct quote.


Suggested Revision for Clarity

Ferdinand Pinto, a 16th-century Portuguese explorer, described the Lequios and the Chinese as among the wealthiest peoples in the Orient, primarily engaged in the trade of gold and silver. He identified the Lequios Islands as an archipelago distinct from Taiwan, considering it a separate country. Pinto differentiated the Lequios from the Chinese, Japanese, Indonesians, and Malays, suggesting they inhabited a region between these known lands. He reportedly traveled northward from Malaysia to reach the Lequios Islands, which he located around 9°20′N—an area corresponding to the central Philippines in modern geography.


Would you like help tracing where this 9°20′N claim appears in Pinto’s writings or how scholars have interpreted the term “Lequios”?

You said:
compare that paragraph to this one from Pinto's journal: In this manner we departed from Pungor the capital City of the Island of Lequios, of which I will here make a brief relation, to the end that if it shall one day please God to inspire the Portugal Nation, principally for the exaltation and increase of the Catholick faith, and next for the great benefit that may redound thereof, to undertake the Conquest of this Island, they may know where first to begin, as also the commodities of it, and the easiness of this Conquest. We must understand then that this Island of Lequios, scituated in nine and twenty degrees, is two hundred leagues in circuit, threescore in length, and thirty in bredth.
ChatGPT said:

Great comparison. The paragraph from Pinto’s journal and the modern one you provided differ significantly in terms of content, interpretation, and tone. Here's a breakdown of how they compare:


Geographical Placement

  • Pinto’s Journal:

    • Explicitly places the Island of Lequios at 29 degrees latitude (presumably north), not 9°20′N.

    • That would situate it in the Ryukyu Islands, particularly near Okinawa, which lies around 26–27°N. This supports the common scholarly view that Lequios refers to Liuqiu / Ryukyu (Okinawa).

  • Modern Paragraph:

    • Claims Pinto placed Lequios at 9N20, which would be in the central Philippines, a completely different region.

    • This appears to be a reinterpretation or misreading of Pinto’s account.


Nature of Lequios

  • Pinto’s Journal:

    • Refers to Lequios as a single island, though large (“two hundred leagues in circuit”).

    • Pinto describes its strategic and economic potential, even considering it for Portuguese conquest and evangelization.

    • His tone is missionary and imperial, typical of Portuguese exploration literature of the 16th century.

  • Modern Paragraph:

    • Describes Lequios as an archipelago and a separate country—not just an island.

    • Attempts to distance it from Japan, China, Malaysia, and Indonesia, claiming it's “in between,” which is geographically ambiguous and inconsistent with Pinto’s 29° placement.

    • The modern paragraph also blurs historical geography, attempting to re-anchor Lequios into a new, modern context (i.e., the Philippines).


Interpretive Gap

  • Pinto’s Writings:

    • Are specific about measurements and strategic interest in the island at 29° latitude.

    • Uses the term Lequios in a way that matches other Portuguese and Spanish accounts referring to Liuqiu / Ryukyu.

  • Modern Paragraph:

    • Introduces a revisionist reading, moving Lequios far south to the Philippines.

    • That reinterpretation doesn’t match Pinto’s own navigational coordinates or common contemporary usage of the term.

    • May reflect an agenda or modern effort to link historical narratives to the Philippines for nationalistic or ideological reasons.


Conclusion

Pinto’s original journal clearly places the Island of Lequios at 29°N, aligning with the Ryukyu Islands (Okinawa), not the Philippines. His descriptions emphasize military strategy, size, and religious conquest. The modern paragraph misrepresents Pinto’s coordinates (29° → 9°20′N), changes a single island into an archipelago, and places it in the wrong region entirely. The reinterpretation appears forced and is inconsistent with the primary source.

Would you like help tracing how the name Lequios evolved in historical geography or how it has been used in other early European texts?