Crucial to Timothy Jay Schwab of The God Culture's claim that the Garden of Eden is in the Philippines beneath the Sulu Sea is the theory he has devised to locate the Rivers of Eden. That would be the Pison, Gihon, Euphrates (Parat), and Hiddekel rivers. He claims that they are actually trenches lying deep beneath the ocean, criss-crossing the earth. Find the rivers and you find the Garden, he says.
Tim reiterates in his book "The Search for King Solomon's Treasure" that this is just a theory but he also says no one has proved him wrong and if you listen to his videos he is very adamant that no other theory fits for finding these rivers. The fact is Tim has not proven these ocean trenches are the Rivers of Eden nor has he proven the Garden of Eden is beneath the Sulu Sea. He has merely laid out a theory. He has also not put it to the test. It would be impossible to carry out such a test as regards the Rivers but finding the Garden of Eden should be rather easy to do utilizing satellite technology and deep sea exploration. James Cameron's Deepsea Challenger could easily Terminate Tim's theory by taking a peek around Tubbatha Reef which is where Tim says the Garden of Eden is.
34:01 The only resistance we we have ever seen to this in fact is mere ridicule not logic as one has to abandon such to deviate from common sense to go against this.
34:36 So, there you go. The Garden of Eden is just below the Philippines under the Sulu Sea.
I don't know if Tim is referring to me here specifically but I assume he is and take umbrage at it. While I have ruthlessly ridiculed and mocked his theory that Enoch is alive and well in the Garden of Eden underneath the Sulu Sea (cue Octopus's Garden) I have also logically banged Tim over the head with Maxwell's Silver Hammer and shown how his theory, and everything else he says, fails any test of logic. There is no mere childish illiterate ridicule in these articles but a systemic destruction of Tim's false teachings. Tim simply ignores how I have dismantled his case piecemeal and has resorted to filing an outrageous libel case against me instead of refuting anything I have written. Imagine going to prison for doing what Tim tells his listeners to do which is to "Test all things." That's how scared he is of me and how disingenuous he is as a thinker. Imagine being an American and prosecuting someone for the inalienable right of free speech. Tim would make a good Filipino.
Attempting to argue with Tim on this matter point-by-point is a fruitless endeavor. The problem is that he holds to many aberrant presuppositions which influence his world view. His Rivers of Eden theory rests on the presupposition that there was no world ocean at the time of creation. Instead there were large lakes and large seas like the Black Sea. He believes this because 2 Esdras 6:42 says that at the creation the earth was only 1/7th water. He believes that 2 Esdras is scripture because it was found in Qumran but apparently he is ignorant that the 2 Esdras found in Qumran was Nehemiah as Ezra-Nehemiah are known as 1-2 Esdras. What Tim refers to as 2 Esdras is actually an apocryphal book written after the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D. It simply is not scripture even by his standards.
It is a rather preposterous assumption that there was no world ocean before the flood. This theory does not take into account the abundant marine life that exists on this planet. It does not take into account the division of freshwater and saline water marine life. It does not take into account the amount of marine life living near the bottom of the ocean in the darkest waters and under the most intense pressure. No ocean means no deepsea species. Many marine species are quite large and require, not mere lakes or large seas, but the entire room of the ocean in order to thrive.
 |
| Timothy Jay Schwab's Rivers From Eden map |
We can cut the Gordian Knot quite cleanly and dismiss his theory with two facts. Tim cannot and has not demonstrated his theory and his theory does not account for the type of marine life we find living in the oceans. There is no need to go point-by-point through his videos and books to "disprove" him. Let us not confuse proof with the workings of a theory, especially a theory which cannot be tested.
I could also go on and on about tectonic plates and how the trenches delineate those plates as well as the depth of the trenches and that no one even knew about them until recently and all kinds of other scientific facts about these ocean trenches which contradict Tim's theory that they are essentially rivers not much different from the Nile, Amazon, or Mississippi. But I will not. It is much better to counter Tim with the inconsistencies within his own paradigm rather than using an evidentialist approach by appealing to indisputable and accepted facts which he a priori rejects. The best one can do is to cast reasonable doubt on his theory with the two facts just stated which are the theory's unfalsifiability and the fact that it does not account for the abundant and unique marine life which requires large bodies of saline water to thrive.
Tim's own map is very explicit that his Rivers From Eden theory is just that, a theory.
Another problem with this theory is that it makes the Bible and even the Book of Jubilees, which Tim considers to be scripture, unintelligible. In Genesis and Jubilees the authors mention the Rivers of Eden in a manner which indicates the readers would be familiar with the location of those rivers. If they are underwater ocean trenches invisible to the eye then the description of them is incomprehensible. Genesis and Jubilees were written to the nation of Israel thousands of years ago. How would Israelites know anything about deep sea ocean trenches? They would not. So that's really three facts and not just two which sufficiently relegate this theory to the dung heap. Like all of Tim's other outlandish, unscientific, and anti-Christian teachings his Rivers of Eden theory is complete rubbish.
One of these rivers, the Hiddekel, is also known to history as the Tigris. Daniel claims to have been walking near the Hiddekel or Tigris river when he had a vision. Tim says it is impossible Daniel was walking near the Tigris because at that time he was far away in Iran. It is this claim I want to analyze in this article. Was Daniel ever in Susa, Iran? The answer is yes and no.
On page 286 of his book, The Search for King Solomon's Treasure, Tim writes:
By the 8th chapter of Daniel, Daniel is still at the King of Babylon's service as he was brought to the palace to interpret the handwriting on the wall just before this. However, King Belshazzar would be the last king of Babylon and he would soon be killed. Daniel in chapter 8 though is at Susa or Sushan, Iran in Persia. He was by the River Ulai for the vision which is no where near the Tigris River nor did he live near the Tigris when in Babylon.
Daniel 8:1-2 KJV
In the third year of the reign of king Belshazzar a vision appeared unto me, even unto me Daniel, after that which appeared unto me at the first. And I saw in a vision; and it came to pass, when I saw, that I was at Shushan in the palace, which is in the province of Elam; and I saw in a vision, and I was by the river of Ulai.
In chapter 9, Babylon had been defeated and Daniel was still in Susa, Iran in the Palace of Darius the Persian King. There was a complete power shift prior to that as Babylon is conquered.
Daniel 9:1 KJV
In the first year of Darius the son of Ahaserus, of the seed of the Medes, which was made king over the realm of the Chaldeans;
Now, you can see the progression of where Daniel lived leading up to his dream in which he invoked Hiddikel River the only other time it is used in scripture.
Let's stop here and take a look and what Tim is saying. He says by chapter 8 Daniel is still in the service of Belshazzar the King of Babylon. We know this because just a few chapters before he was called in to read the writing on the wall. Tim then says the king would soon be killed and that Daniel is not in Babylon but in Persia. Then he says in chapter 9 Babylon had been defeated and Daniel remained in Susa in the Palace of Darius the Perisan King.
None of that is true. It should be kept in mind that Daniel is not in chronological order. Belshazzar was killed and Babylon conquered immediately after Daniel read the writing on the wall, the same night in fact. There was no reprieve for Belshazzar. Chapter 5 has the writing on the wall, the defeat of Belshazzar, and the installation of Darius the Median as king. Chapter 6 discusses the rule of Darius, chapter 7 goes back to the first year of Belshazzar's reign, 8 continues the reign of Belshazzar, and finally we jump forward to Darius the Mede in chapter 9. The chronological order of the chapters is 1-2-3-4-7-8-5-9-11-12-6-10.
There is no need to get into a discussion about why the chapters are out of order or the languages of each chapter which vary from Hebrew to Aramaic. The point is chapter 8 comes before chapter 5, when Belshazzar is killed. Therefore Daniel was not and could not have been in Persia during the events of that chapter. He remained in Babylon in chapter 8 which is from where Belshazzar ruled. Daniel's being in Sushan was wholly in a vision. That is what the text says.
And I saw in a vision; and it came to pass, when I saw, that I was at Shushan in the palace,
There is also no need to discuss the mysterious and unknown identity of Darius the Mede. And it is Darius the Mede not Darius the Persian. The name is in the text. How did Tim overlook that? Darius the Perisan succeeded King Cyrus. In 521 BC it was he who moved the capitol to Susa where he built a large palace. Daniel was never in Iran during the reigns of Belshazzar and Cyrus.
Right here we see multiple goofs from Tim as he attempts to interpret the book of Daniel. He confuses the timeline because he does not realize that Daniel is not in chronological order. There are many more goofs ahead. Let's move on to the section about King Cyrus.
Years have passed and Cyrus the Great is now King of Persia. Daniel's vision occurs in Iran.
Daniel 10:1-5 KJV
In the third year of Cyrus king of Persia a thing was revealed unto Daniel, whose name was called Belteshazzar; and the thing was true, but the time appointed was long: and he understood the thing, and had understanding of the vision. In those days I Daniel was mourning three full weeks. I ate no pleasant bread, neither came flesh nor wine in my mouth, neither did I anoint myself at all, till three whole weeks were fulfilled. And in the four and twentieth day of the first month, as I was by the side of the great river, which is Hiddekel; Then I lifted up mine eyes, and looked, and behold a certain man clothed in linen, whose loins were girded with fine gold of Uphaz:
Daniel was in Susa, Iran where he is even recorded as expiring near the Persian Gulf on the Iranian side near the River Ulai which is mentioned by name before yet he invokes the Great River Hiddikel. Great River? He is referring to the River From Eden indeed but that is not located in Assyria but East of Assyria at this point. Daniel is right next to the Persian Gulf in Iran not Babylon not Assyria at this point. The Trench system on the bottom of the Indian Ocean East of Assyria runs right up to the Persian Gulf.
You can see the massive Mid-Ocean Ridge here which connects with the Trenches around the Indian Ocean leading to the Persian Gulf especially. Daniel literally meant he was next to the original Hiddikel River which was on the bottom of the ocean floor right in front of him.
Again, this is more nonsense. Chronologically, yes, a few years had passed as this is the last chapter of Daniel when correctly ordered. But saying Daniel was in Susa is totally wrong because it was Cyrus who defeated Belshazzar and conquered Babylon in 539. Again, there is no reason to discuss Darius the Mede. Attempting to discover who this man really was lies beyond the scope of this article. The book of Daniel indicates he did not live past Cyrus' third year which would be 536. By then Daniel was a very old man, almost a centenarian.
Cyrus did not rule from Susa. He ruled from Babylon. In fact he was so busy fighting that he did not have time to stay in one place and consolidate his kingdom. He died in 530 and then his son Cambyses ruled the Persian kingdom until 522. It was then that Darius ascended to the throne which he moved to Susa in 521 where he also built a great palace and many other works. That means Daniel did not go to Susa. How could he? He was dead long before Darius took the throne and removed it from Babylon.
But there is no need to dive deep into history. Once again the Gordian Knot is cut and Tim's claim is dismissed very easily. Let's pretend Daniel was in Susa as Tim teaches.
The red dot is Susa. It is a three to four hour drive to get to the Persian Gulf. One commentary has this to say:
The introduction further specifies that the setting for this vision is the citadel of Susa in the province of Elam in the proximity of the Ulai Canal (v.2). The city of Susa (Heb. šûšan, but called “Susa” by the Greeks) was situated some 220 miles east of Babylon and 150 miles north of the Persian Gulf.
The Expositor's Bible commentary, vol. 8, Daniel-Malachi
Cleary Susa is a great distance away from the Persian Gulf. Yet Tim says that being in Susa, Daniel was "right next to the Persian Gulf."
Daniel is right next to the Persian Gulf in Iran not Babylon not Assyria at this point. Daniel literally meant he was next to the original Hiddikel River which was on the bottom of the ocean floor right in front of him.
In his video Did the Book of Sirach Find the Rivers From Eden? he repeats this same claim as he wrests the poetry of Ecclesiasticus 24 in a vain attempt to prove that Sirach was speaking of the Rivers of Eden as being undersea ocean trenches.
17:33 So he was living on the gulf coast on the Iranian side again nowhere near the Tigris river.
If Daniel was in Susa he was 150 miles north of the Perisan Gulf and not "living on the gulf coast." Thus, Timothy Jay Schwab is wrong. He has completely mangled the book of Daniel in order to promote his absurd theory that the Rivers of Eden are undersea trenches and that the Garden of Eden is in the Philippines underneath the Sulu Sea. This is the verse as Tim reads it:
And in the four and twentieth day of the first month, as I was by the side of the great undersea ocean trench, which is Hiddekel
Now the verse is incoherent and meaningless. Instead of simply reading the text as it is Tim interprets it in a way that no one can understand what Daniel is saying. If the Rivers of Eden are invisible, undersea ocean trenches then it makes no sense to talk about these Rivers by name or as rivers. Rivers visibly mark boundaries and territories on the surface of the earth. Undersea ocean trenches do not. Daniel is giving a specific location as he is confident his readers know where the Hiddekel is.
To be as thorough as I can here in debunking Tim's claim let's look at Tim's original Rivers From Eden video. In that video he has the Hiddekel way out in the middle of the Indian Ocean.
44:57 ...Daniel was far more likely in Persia overlooking the ocean right where there is the ancient trench system in the middle of the Indian Ocean.
If Daniel was in Susa he would not have been able to look towards the middle of the Indian Ocean. Daniel says, "I was by the side of the great river, which is Hiddekel." If he really means he was looking out towards the middle of the Indian Ocean at an invisible deep sea trench then his statement becomes nonsense. This also contradicts what Tim writes in his book:
Daniel literally meant he was next to the original Hiddikel River which was on the bottom of the ocean floor right in front of him.
The middle of the Indian Ocean would not be "right in front of him." But we can perhaps explain this contradiction by making an allowance for a progression of ideas. You see, Tim's theory is ever evolving. In his video where he responds to the Ophirian Heritage Conservatory he says this:
32:50 A closer look at the trenches in that area which make up this ancient Hiddekel River which were all connected before the flood which are functional to this day with hydrothermal vents that are balancing the salinity of the ocean as well as heating the great deep keeping our entire ecosystem going still functioning. But it travels all the way up into the Persian Gulf in fact. Yep right where Daniel was when he had his vision close to Susa. It is likely Daniel enjoyed more freedom in Persia than in Babylon. Especially when Cyrus built a new palace up north in Ecbatana Media as well and Daniel it appears remained in Susa. He was on the shore of the Indian Ocean when he saw his vision and there are several nice beaches there even on the banks of the Hiddekel River, the ancient river which is now covered by the ocean and positioned on the bottom of the ocean floor.
Now Tim places Daniel on the shore of the Indian Ocean when he had a vision in Susa. Which is it? Was he in Susa? Was he on the banks of the Persian Gulf? Or was Daniel on the shore of the Indian Ocean? How would he even get to the shore of the Indian Ocean? The answer is simple. He was in Babylon on the banks of the Hiddekel as the text says. Tim is wrong and the fact that he cannot get the location of Daniel right but contradicts himself three times just shows he is hopelessly confused.
To strengthen his claim that Daniel was in Susa Tim mentions that there are traditions that Daniel died there and his tomb is there. Actually several places are competing for the honor of being Daniel's final resting place. The Jewish Encyclopedia has a strange legend about Daniel's remains in Susa.
Benjamin of Tudela, who visited the Holy Land about 1160 C.E., gives much more accurate information in his account of Susa. In the façade of one of its many synagogues he was shown the tomb assigned by tradition to Daniel.
Benjamin declares, however, that the tomb does not hold Daniel's remains, which were said to have been discovered at Susa about (640 C.E. The remains were supposed to bring good fortune: and bitter quarrels arose because of them between the inhabitants of the two banks of the Choaspes. All those living on the side on which Daniel's grave was situated were rich and happy, while those on the opposite side were poor and in want; the latter, therefore, wished the bier of Daniel transferred to their side of the river. They finally agreed that the bier should rest alternately one year on each side. This agreement was carried out for many years, until the Persian shah Sanjar, on visiting the city, stopped the practise, holding that the continual removal of the bier was disrespectful to the prophet. He ordered the bier to be fastened with chains to the bridge, directly in the middle of the structure; and he erected a chapel on the spot for both Jews and non-Jews. The king also forbade fishing in the river within a mile of Daniel's bier.
https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/4872-daniel-tomb-of
According to this tradition the remains of Daniel were found in Susa 900 years after he died. How they got there or whether he actually died in Susa is not said. The bones worked miracles granting either riches or poverty causing two towns on opposite ides of the Choaspes River to fued over Daniel's remains. The Shah eventually put an end to this conflict by fastening Daniel's bier to a bridge and building a tomb. Daniel's remains are not in the tomb.
What sober person would believe such unbelievable flights of fancy about bones working miracles? Yes I am aware it happens once in the Bible with the bones of Elisha. But this is hardly the same thing. The location of Daniel's final resting place is not even in the tomb at Susa. Wherever his remains lie does not matter to our query, "Did Daniel visit Susa?" The answer to that is yes he did but in a vision, not physically.
One could go a lot deeper into this issue as in his videos Tim whips out the Hebrew and compares the word for "this river" with that for "Hiddekel" in order to prove the Hiddekel is not the Tigris. There is no need to go there. What I have written here is enough to show that Tim has no idea what is going on in Daniel and it is enough to cast doubt on his theory. In the context of the Book of Daniel the Hiddekel River does not indicate an undersea ocean trench in the Persian Gulf or in the middle of the Indian Ocean. I will however note that nahar is a general word for river used 120 times in the Bible and applied to many rivers not just the Tigris while nehar occurs only 15 times and is the Aramaic equivalent of the Hebrew nahar. Thus both of those words are generic terms for a river and not proper names for any specific river. That fact renders Tim's word study about "this river" as so much meaningless hot air.
Let's wrap this up.
Tim claims the Hiddekel River is an undersea ocean trench. Because of this he says Daniel's mention of the Hiddekel cannot be the Tigris as many other commentators affirm. He then interprets the Book of Daniel to prove that when Daniel wrote he was near the Hiddekel River he was actually in Susa, Iran literally standing right next to the Perisan Gulf and the undersea ocean trench which is the true Hiddekel River. Or else he was on the shore of the Indian Ocean peering out into the middle of that great body of water where the Hiddekel River lies buried, invisible to man's eyes.
All of that is wrong. Tim does not take into account that Daniel is not in chronological order and does not interpret Daniel's vision of being in Susa correctly. Instead of a vision Tim thinks he was actually there. The book of Daniel never tells us that Daniel was really in Susa expect for in a vision. When Daniel mentions the Hiddekel River he was still in Babylon which was under the rule of Cyrus who never reigned from Susa. Even if he were in Susa he would have been 150 miles north of the Persian Gulf and any undersea ocean trench. Therefore whatever the Hiddekel River is it must be located near Babylon. The only candidates are the Tigris or the Euphrates not an invisible undersea ocean trench.
Lest Tim object that the Tigris is too far away, that appears to not be the case.
At that time, Babylon seems to have been a minor city or perhaps a large port town on the Euphrates River at the point where it runs closest to the river Tigris.
https://www.ancient.eu/babylon/
Even Herodotus writes that the Tigris was easily accessible from Babylon.
For the whole Babylonian territory like the Egyptian is cut up into channels, and the largest of the channels is navigable for ships and runs in the direction of the sunrising in winter from the Euphrates to another river, namely the Tigris, along the bank of which lay the city of Nineveh
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/2707/2707-h/2707-h.htm#linknoteref-198
Daniel does not tell us how he got to the side of the Hiddekel River but if it was the Tigris he could have gotten there rather easily from Babylon. One thing is for sure, Daniel was not on the Perisan Gulf coast in Iran nor on the shore of the Indian Ocean when he mentions the Hiddekel River. Nor did he ever live in Susa. Timothy Jay Schwab of The God Culture is wrong.
