Timothy Jay Schwab of The God Culture most certainly believes in the antediluvian existence of the mythical kingdoms and continents known as Lemuria and Atlantis. He does not say much about them in his videos but he does mention them often in the comment section of his videos and he refers to them in his book The Search for King Solomon's Treasure as being buried beneath the sediment of the flood. But what evidence does he have for the existence of those fabled realms?
Let's start with Lemuria. Lemuria is an allegedly sunken continent posited in 1864 by the zoologist Philip Sclater to account for the disparate distribution of lemur fossils to be found in India and Madagascar.
The anomalies of the mammal fauna of Madagascar can best be explained by supposing that... a large continent occupied parts of the Atlantic and Indian Oceans... that this continent was broken up into islands, of which some have become amalgamated with... Africa, some... with what is now Asia; and that in Madagascar and the Mascarene Islands we have existing relics of this great continent, for which... I should propose the name Lemuria!
That's actually a rather boring and normal scientific theory which has gone out of fashion over the years due to the discovery of plate tectonics and continental drift, two things that Timothy Jay Schwab rejects. It was the Theosophists who constructed a whole mythology around Lemuria concerning human origins. What does Timothy have to say about Lemuria? That it might have been founded by Cain in the area of the Pacific Ocean.
 |
| The Mystery of Cain: Part 1. Answers In Jubilees 20 |
36:04 He could have settled anywhere, in the Pacific perhaps founding maybe even the fabled Lemuria which is a nephilim kingdom because the nephilim took it over which is no surprise because Cain's lineage did in fact mate with nephilim, well, with angels to create and procreate the nephilim. But we find it far more likely he traveled even further east to higher ground. Why? Well, Cain would have known that the earth was going to be flooded. See, Adam knew this prophecy according to several accounts. We actually do cover that. We are not going to go into detail on this because this is an educated guess and no more because no one has found the road sign yet saying "Cain lived here." Just hasn't happened.
If you follow the 10th parallel to the east from the Philippines specifically from the Garden of Eden area above ground through the Pacific you end up in south Mexico. Well, that's odd because there is an ancient city there built on top of a more ancient city, no one really knows how old it is so we don't have any data to prove it's exactly that old and this is definitely Cain's, we don't, we are speculated, speculating in an educated manner here. Here's what we find odd though and we've even heard Steve Quayle and others I believe mentioning this if I have that right. Tenochtitlan actually has the name of Cain's son and that's right there in south Mexico. Enoch the magician not the good one and that just happens to fit Cain naming his first city after Enoch. Can you fully prove that out? Well maybe you can we cannot, not right now but it is an interesting thought.
 |
| manila to mexico city miles |
 |
| Zechariah Sitchin, The Lost Realms, pgs 41-42 |
Are we, then, encountering in the traditions of the seven Nahuatl tribes echoes—olden memories—of the banished line of Cain and his son Enoch?
A Babylonian text based in the opinion of scholars on an earlier Sumerian text from the third millennium b.c. enigmatically relates a conflict, ending in murder, between an earth-tilling and a shepherding brother, just as the biblical Cain and Abel were. Doomed to “roam in sorrow,” the offending leader, called Ka’in, migrated to the land of Dunnu and there “he built a city with twin towers.”
Twin towers atop the temple-pyramids were a hallmark of Aztec architecture. Did this commemorate the building of a “city with twin towers” by Ka’in? And was Tenochtitlan, the “City of Tenoch,” so named and built because Cain, millennia earlier, “built a city and called the city by his son’s name, Enoch”?
Have we found in Mesoamerica the lost realm of Cain, the city named after Enoch? The possibility certainly offers plausible answers to the enigma of Man’s beginnings in these domains.
Rocky: Hello. Where is the Land of Nod, East of Eden, the place of exile of Cain?
The God Culture: That would make it East of Havilah where Adam and Eve lived in the Philippines. It could be on the bottom of the ocean floor covered by the Flood but there is a place in South America that fits. An ancient society who called their city TENOCHtilan with the name Enoch within. Cain named his first city after his son Enoch. Yah Bless.
Again, what is his source for this information? It's a guess. An educated guess Tim calls it, though I dispute the educated part since he places Tenochtitlan in South America this time, but a guess nonetheless. So, this is Tim's method. It's all guesswork. He has absolutely nothing factual on which to build his assertions regarding Cain building Tenochtitlan.
Let's get back to Lemuria for a moment. Sometimes Tim is very sure that Lemuria existed.
 |
From Where Did Demons Originate? When? How? Who? What? Answers In Jubilees: Part 16 |
Constance McDonough: Atlantis perhaps perished due to the Great Flood.
The God Culture: Indeed. 2 Esdras says the world was only 1/7th or about 15% water before the Flood. Atlantis and Lemuria are on the bottom of the ocean floor under massive amounts of Flood sediment. Yah Bless.
 |
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffhytbvGRMo&lc=Ugy9A30ZBsAPASZxnaN4AaABAg |
Only Hebrew existed at Creation. No other language can produce even archaeology to precede that. The notion that Hebrew is only 3,000 years old is another very illiterate assumption of scholars who ignore much of history sticking their fingers in their ears such as one of the very oldest historic documents in all of history called the Bible. They are operating as illiterates to call a stone carving from a pagan king even with his occult religion while throwing the Bible out in willing ignorance. Lemuria watch our Rivers from Eden and you can see where the shape would have flowed. It would not include the Philippines. Africa does not connect to the Indian Ocean. It has a trench system surrounded known as the Gihon River. Those calling themselves scientists who look at islands and continents connected with the ocean floor are incapable of basic reason especially with these supposed Land Bridge Theory. These are nonsense and unproven and unprovable in any sense. Just wild, very wild, guesses not hypothesis because they do not involve any actual expertise other than steeping oneself into an occult paradigm. The Bible actually lays out the Pre-Flood world. It's right and has been all along. Using their own logic, the Bible far precedes them thus must be the origin of all discussions about the topic. It's funny how they use that but when it comes to themselves the rule doesn't apply. It's willing ignorance (2 Pet. 3). Lemuria is not actual history though likely it did exist but it did not include Africa, continental Asia nor the Philippines as there are very deep Mega-Rivers which separate these areas. Lemuria and Atlantis were overwhelmed with water. It's so hard to figure out those accounts refer to the Flood of the Bible which was world-wide. Atlantis and Lemuria are on the bottom of the ocean covered by massive amounts of Flood sediment in which we have no equipment capable of excavating. Yah Bless.
Remember in the the first example Tim said Lemuria was a "nephilim kingdom." Now he says "Lemuria is not actually history." What sense does that make? None at all.
Let's skip over to Atlantis. Tim says Atlantis was also a nephilim kingdom. In fact he seems to be privy to a lot of detail about its founding.
 |
Pitt 83: Is it possible that the Nephilim during their time on the earth occupied the land we eventually called the continent of Atlantis ?? Wiped out during the flood ??
The God Culture: Indeed. Atlantis was a Nephilim kingdom ruled by the 10 Giant, Nephilim sons of Poseidon who was a Watcher Fallen Angel. The legend is a Nephilim account of their history. It was the empire which warred with the Earth bringing it to destruction and Yahuah saved it and wiped out their kingdom and all of them. As man, there is only record of 1 ship of Nephilim surviving the Flood. Watch Did Ron Wyatt Find the Nephilim Ark. Yah Bless.
How does Tim know any of this? Where is he getting his information from? How does he know ten sons of Poseidon ruled Atlantis? How does he know the nephilim Atlanteans warred with the Earth and brought it to destruction? Certainly not from Enoch or Jubilees which do not mention Atlantis. The oldest and most reliable information about Atlantis comes from Plato. Beyond him there are no ancient references to Atlantis. In modern times all fantastic information about Atlantis ultimately originates with Ignatius Donnelly.
In 1882, he published Atlantis: The Antediluvian World, his best-known work. It details theories concerning the mythical lost continent of Atlantis. The book sold well and is widely credited with initiating the theme of Atlantis as an antediluvian civilization that became such a feature of popular literature during the 20th century and contributed to the emergence of Mayanism. Donnelly suggested that Atlantis, whose story was told by Plato in the dialogues of Timaeus and Critias, had been destroyed during the same event remembered in the Bible as the Great Flood.
Whether he knows it or not everything Tim has to say about Atlantis has its origins in Donnelly's book. in 1883 Donnelly published a sequel about the destruction of Atlantis titled The Destruction of Atlantis, Ragnarok: The Age of Fire and Gravel. I found a copy at Booksale at SM mall. The publisher is Steiner books. That would be the preeminent Theosophist and disciple of H.P. Blavatsky, Rudolf Steiner. Atlantis and Lemuria both play important roles in the cosmology of the Theosophists.
Now, I can continue to post more of Tim's comments about Lemuria, Atlantis, and Tenochtitlan and rightly mock him but that is not the point here. I want to point out that Tim BELIEVES all of this junk. He believes that Lemuria and Atlantis really did exist and were populated and ruled by nephilim, angel-human hypbrids. Some of whom survived the flood by building an ark as Tim teaches from Zechariah Sitchin's Lost Book of Enki. He also believes that Tenochtitilan was founded by Cain before the flood and named after his son Enoch. But on what basis?
The truth is he has no firm historical basis for believing any of that. Now, this is funny because while there is no evidence for Lemuria or Atlantis having existed or that Cain founded Tenochtitlan which would have been wiped away by the floodwaters there is plenty of evidence that Antiochus Epiphanies defiled the temple by sacrificing a pig on the altar and that the Maccabees revolted against him. We know this primarily through the books of 1st and 2nd Maccabees. But Tim claims those well attested books are elaborate frauds.
 |
|
21:11 The first Antiochus Soter takes charge in 281 BC and what do we know of history? Well we just read he and his Greek successors do not force their way into Jerusalem. They don't do it. That's what they said in their true history not what Maccabees says which is a lie written by liars according to scripture. Messiah himself many times calls them such.
There is no one single quote that captures the essence of this video but that one will do. One must watch the video to really grasp what Tim is saying and he does say quite a lot. He reaches out far and wide grasping at the Dead Sea Scrolls and testimony compiled by William Whiston to disprove the narrative in Maccabees which is that Antiochus Epiphanies defiled the temple by sacrificing a pig on the altar and forced the Jews to submit to Hellenic customs which led Judas Maccabees and his sons to spearhead a rebellion against him which led to the expulsion of the Greeks from Jerusalem and to the cleansing of the temple.
Tim rejects all of that saying that the only ones to defile the temple were the Maccabees who took over the priesthood. Now, that is very true. The Maccabees did in fact end up occupying the position of High Priest. Most notably Jonathan and Simon Maccabees held that position. But this does not mean that Antiochus Epiphanies never defiled the temple or that he did not attempt to force Hellenism on the Jews. Tim is even more explicit in his rejection of this history at the beginning of the video when he calls Maccabees propaganda.
5:49 "But Elohim did not permit the city to be delivered into the hands of the kings of Greece." Now ,what does that mean? We'll cover the history so you can see for yourself the actual written history which tells us Greece took Yahudia but peacefully and there is no story of the Greeks defiling the temple, period! Now, how do we know this? Read. "From the time of Antiochus," who's that? He was the ruler of that area for Greece as were his sons, grandson and so on all the way to Antiochus the IV known as Epiphanies. He is reported only in the book of Maccabees, and again those that are really quoting that in origin, as defiling the temple because it wasn't enough for Yahudia to pay their taxes and be controlled now he all of a sudden decided to just go and you know against even Alexander the great's wishes and attack Yahudia and defile the temple because he just had to do it with, uh, the sacrifice of a pig of course. Why? Because that would bring outrage. See, propaganda does that it brings outrage.
In this video and elsewhere Tim never explains just who wrote Maccabees as propaganda or when and why it was written. He never explains why Maccabees was accepted by the Jews as true history. In fact, in this video Tim never once attempts to analyze the contents of the Book of Maccabees. Not one time does Tim quote Maccabees in this video to show any inconsistencies to prove that it is a lie. That is pathetic. If I wanted to prove that a book was a lie I'd use its own words to convict it of falsehood the same way I have used Timothy Jay Schwab's own words to prove that he is a liar.
Has Tim even read the Books of Maccabees? If he did he would not say something so stupid like, "now he all of a sudden decided to just go and you know against even Alexander the great's wishes and attack Yahudia and defile the temple." 2 Maccabees tells us exactly why Antiochus attacked Jerusalem and defiled the temple.
2 Maccabees 5:11-16
There it is. Antiochus Epiphanies thought there was a rebellion in Judea. That is why he sacked Jerusalem and defiled the temple. But why did he think there was a rebellion? Well, there are 4 chapters full of intrigue which answer that question. Too bad Timothy declines to cite any of that. Another thing Timothy fails to mention is that Antiochus, at hearing the temple had been restored, repented of the evil he had done. That story can be found in 1 Maccabees 6:1-16. If Maccabees is lying propaganda meant to outrage the people against the Greeks why would a narrative of Antiochus' repentance be included? What kind of propaganda value does that have?
But Tim does not discuss any of that history even once. Instead he jumps right into the fire and calls the Book of Maccabees, he does not specify but I assume he means all four of them, a lie. He does so on the strength of the Dead Sea Scrolls and a certain work by William Whiston which is about Alexander the Great and not Antiochus. He offers no other sources to uphold his claim.
 |
| Bust of Antiochus Epiphanies |
2:43 Now we're told in Maccabees and let's be clear the Greeks were very good at recording history and they do not record this story.
 |
| https://www.livius.org/articles/person/antiochus-iv-epiphanes/ |
Whither the lion goes, there is the lion’s cub, [with none to disturb it] (ii, IIb).[Interpreted, this concerns Deme]trius king of Greece who sought, on the counsel of those who seek smooth things, to enter Jerusalem. [But God did not permit the city to be delivered] into the hands of the kings of Greece, from the time of Antiochus until the coming of the rulers of the Kittim. But then she shall be trampled under their feet ...
Note we removed the commentary injection in Geza Vermes’ translation in parentheses that claimed “when the sun’s orb is distant by its own fulness from the gate” as to mean sunset. That is fraud and misrepresentation as this occurs twice daily – once at sunrise and once at sunset.
Rest:The Case for Sabbath pgs 234-235
Lacunae impossible to complete with any measure of confidence are indicated by dots in the translation. Texts supplied from a different manuscript of the same document appear between { }. Hypothetical but likely reconstructions are placed between [ ] and glosses necessary for fluency between ( ).Dead Sea Scrolls, Geza Vermes, pg. 95
 |
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRHQOMfdmgE&lc=UgxH1aTSH_auLG6-zzV4AaABAg.9PfpFQNMUml9Qfmo8-EtAk |
Vanderkam is still a scoffer however. He misses the most important elements and ignores the historicity of the community and can't see his nose in front of his face. These were not Essenes, they were the Temple Priests who have the ministry of keeping scripture throughout the ages. They defined the Bible Canon of their age and he doesn't. No scholar does. To then call in to question the very Bible endorsed by Messiah who launched His ministry there is inept and willing ignorance. He's a smart man but unfortunately not smart enough to see the obvious because he is living in a box. No thank you. Yah Bless.
With the conquest of the Holy Land by the Seleucids, or Syrian Greeks, in 200 BCE, the first signs appeared of Jews succumbing to a foreign cultural influence. In the apocryphal Book of Ecclesiasticus, dated to the beginning of the second century BCE, its author, Jesus ben Sira, a sage from Jerusalem, rages against those ‘ungodly men’ who have ‘forsaken the Law of the Most High God’ (xli, 8). But the real trouble started when Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175-164 BCE) officially promoted a Hellenizing programme in Judaea that was embraced with eagerness by the Jewish elite. The leader of the modernist faction was the brother of the High Priest Onias III. Known as Jesus among his compatriots, he adopted the Greek name of Jason, and set about transforming Jerusalem into a Hellenistic city, by building a gymnasium there and persuading the Jewish youth to participate in athletic games. As 2 Maccabees describes the situation:
So Hellenism reached a high point with the introduction of foreigncustoms through the boundless wickedness of the impious Jason, notrue High Priest. As a result, the priests no longer had any enthusiasm fortheir duties at the altar, but despised the temple and neglected thesacrifices; and in defiance of the law they eagerly contributed to theexpenses of the wrestling-school whenever the opening gong calledthem. They placed no value on their hereditary dignities, but cared aboveeverything for Hellenic honours.
(2 Mac. iv, 13-15)
Jason was succeeded by two other High Priests with the same Greek sympathies, Menelaus and Alcimus. In 169 BCE Antiochus IV visited Jerusalem and looted the Temple. But when in 167 he actually prohibited the practice of Judaism under pain of death and rededicated the Jerusalem Sanctuary to Olympian Zeus, the ‘abomination of desolation’, the opponents of the Hellenizers finally rose up in violent resistance.
Dead Sea Scrolls, Geza Vermes, pgs. 50-51
The story told in this ten-line fragment, which contains only broken lines, resembles the account of Daniel xi concerning the ‘King of the North’ (Antiochus IV Epiphanes) who invades Egypt and ill-treats Jerusalem. For the editio princeps, see M. Broshi and E. Eshel, DJD, XXXVI, 192-200.... in Egypt and Greece and ... Therefore they shall eat ... their [s]ons and their daughters in a siege in ... And (the Lord) shall cause [His] wind to pass [through] their court- yards and ... he shall come to Egypt and sell her dust and ... to the city of the Temple and shall capture her with all [her ... ] And he shall turn against the lands of the nations and shall return to Egyp[t] ... [And when the shattering of the power of the ho[ly] people [comes to an end] ... When all these [come into being] the children [of Israel] shall return ...
Dead Sea Scrolls, Geza Vermes, pg.. 404
[Interpreted, this concerns Deme]trius king of Greece who sought, on the counsel of those who seek smooth things, to enter Jerusalem. [But God did not permit the city to be delivered] into the hands of the kings of Greece, from the time of Antiochus until the coming of the rulers of the Kittim. But then she shall be trampled under their feet ...
It is difficult to determine definitively to which Antiochus the pesher is referring, since it could be Antiochus IV, who reigned during the outbreak of the Hasmonean revolt, or it could be Antiochus V, who reigned when the Temple was purged, or Antiochus VII, who besieged Jerusalem in 134 B.C.E
The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Hasmonean State, pg. 123-124
 |
| The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Hasmonean State |
