The God Culture Philippines Biblical History Library

Drop the stick would ya... Nobody is playing along. 

THE GOD CULTURE PHILIPPINES BLOG | APRIL 2, 2025 A THIRD TIME

The Columbus Correction: Setting the Record Straight on Zipangu, Ophir, and the Blogger Who Won't Let Go

A thorough rebuttal to persistent misrepresentations about Christopher Columbus, Zipangu, and The God Culture's research. Addressing obsessive false claims and correcting the record with source-based accuracy.

The God Culture: Clarifying Columbus, Zipangu, and Ophir—Again

It’s remarkable how one blogger—after publishing not one, not two, but three separate blogs on the same topic—still fails to grasp the context, source, and language of a single paragraph. His evolving criticisms only reveal a deeper issue: not simple misreading, but a consistent pattern of misrepresenting facts to prop up a crumbling narrative.

Let us be unequivocally clear:

• The source cited is Washington Irving's respected biography The Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus, p.210.

• Irving documents Columbus himself equating the mines of Hayna with Ophir, and his voyage as aiming for Zipangu (Cipangu), a land Columbus viewed as synonymous with ancient Ophir.

• The blogger claims Columbus never made such a connection. That is false. Irving clearly attributes this view to Columbus, and the conclusion is not ambiguous. In fact, even when landing in the Caribbean, Columbus identified Ophir, Uphaz, Zipangu, and Paradise all in the same area he thought was the Philippines. That also is not up for debate and many such sources have been provided, over and over.

Incredibly, the blogger claims this citation disproves the very point it affirms. Worse, he continues to shift his own interpretations as he loses ground.

The Evolving Narrative: From Confusion to Collapse

This saga started in September 2024, with a blog post mocking our citation from Irving’s biography. He ignored the broader narrative of Columbus' beliefs, fixated only on whether the word "rebuke" was used directly, also, negligently forgetting that it is Marco Polo who is the author of the Great Khan's Zipangu account being identified. Thus to rebuke the account, (for those who can think), that means Polo. 

In February 2025, he doubled down. Despite being shown the quote in its full context, he reiterated the same debunked argument, now accusing us of deliberately twisting sources—while continuing to cherry-pick. This is typical behavior hundreds of times from a hack with Colonial bias. 

Finally, on April 1, 2025, he revisited the claim a third time. The irony of choosing April Fool’s Day is not lost on us.

He calls our reading "objectively false," yet ignores:

• The actual logic in Columbus aligning Zipangu and Ophir

• The historical framework of Columbus interpreting Marco Polo's Cipangu as a land of gold, ripe with biblical associations

• Ironically, it was Marco Polo himself who authored the account of the Grand Khan and Zipangu, which makes him directly included in any rebuke. If that connection needs to be spelled out, one may question whether the blogger is approaching this topic with even the most basic level of critical reasoning.

• The fact that Irving does depict Columbus as correcting prior misconceptions—not quoting Marco Polo, but positioning his own discovery in contrast

This blogger cannot or will not make the distinction between Columbus' interpretation of Polo's Zipangu and a literal confrontation between Columbus and Polo (which of course never happened as they lived centuries apart). The idea of a "rebuke" is rhetorical, not literal, and anyone with even modest literary comprehension can understand that.

The Hypocrisy of Perfection

This same blogger routinely mocks simple typos and formatting slips as signs of fraud or deception. And yet, in his March 31, 2025 post, he misspells Timothy Jay Schwab's name as "Shwab." By his standard, this invalidates his entire blog archive and reveals a sinister conspiracy, right? Of course not—it’s a typo. Just like the ones he endlessly ridicules in others.

One standard for himself. Another for everyone else.

The Anonymity Smokescreen

He attacks The God Culture research team for remaining anonymous. Yet he is anonymous, hiding behind pseudonyms, fake usernames, and obscure blog accounts. He’s written over 200 hostile articles, yet finds it offensive that researchers who support Tim and Anna don't take center stage. Their role is research. They give credit where it is due. It’s not about fame. It’s about facts.

This led to his intolerable defamation in which he goes on and on in a blog asking AI if one of our books has multiple authors when TGC has never said anyone else, other than Anna with Tim together, have actually written any of our books except The Mystery of the Three Kings, which author's name appears on the cover, and also that author was defamed by this blogger. He saw Tim and Anna's daughter's name on a Copyright for mailing purposes as "Attention", and launched into a rant even appearing to question the relationship between Tim and her when the idiot could not bother to conduct basic research to realize it was their daughter only being used for mailing purposes so they get the certificates overseas. The harasser even sent that blog to the daughter via email because he knew no one read it and no one cared proving illegal conduct by his own admission. Does he have a brain is a question that comes to mind?

One would think this would be basic research skills of one full of so much bluster yet, one can observe this very topic as an absolute psy-op, and not a real blog, and certainly not journalism. This is likely why this blogger has breached all legal barriers into hundreds of infractions he will soon face, no matter how much he cries because we call him out for what were clearly his own actions, his own admissions in harassing emails, etc. That includes his own sending illegal harassing photos of this couple's children and then, following through to agitate them illegally, and that list continues as well. There is no respect there for the law, and what are rules in the public arena of free speech he tramples and thinks he will not be brought to justice. He will.  In other words, as with this topic, there is no accepting of responsibility whatsoever on his part, and he claims to be a bastion of truth in which he just lied and changed his story over 43 blogs in a documented pattern elevating the crime. Ye,t all he does is bash with no position on Ophir and the Garden of Eden in about 5 years, except nuh-uh of course. Columbus didn't say that... Yet, he did according to a very credible authority which this blogger is not. No one has to agree with Washington Irving but behaving as a child claiming that citing him accurately, as we did, is dishonest and similar is called defamation especially when steered directly at Tim as this blowhard offers many times in any blog in obvious assault. Somehow, he thinks he will get away with that. He will not. Marco Polo is not even mentioned... forgetting he was the author being rebuked with the Great Khan, which is an incredible inept miss from one claiming to even be able to read. That is psychosis on an extreme level which is why we do not engage this blogger and certainly will never mention his name which he hides anyway as a coward, but not for long, who has proven to only be a hit blog deserving of no such. This saga will end however, and perhaps with his imprisonment which the evidence demands in a flood. [2 paragraphs added April 3 as we are not going to publish a lot of blogs on this anonymous blogger's character assassination, but we will address it in writing for documentation purposes, as this blogger will be brought to justice]

The Fabrication About Sources

He claims we "only" use secondary sources. Yet we published a 300-page Sourcebook of mostly primary sources, including translations, facsimiles, and original references for our first book and certainly we maintain mostly primary sources in Garden of Eden Revealed and The Mystery of the Three Kings. To ignore this is dishonest. To continue repeating it after being corrected is libelous. There is no debating a libeler, (as he demands), you crush their nonsense which we do, without stooping to their extremely low level.

We use:

• Columbus’ marginal notes

• Letters from the Age of Discovery

• Ancient maps in high resolution

• Original Hebrew word studies

• A massive cache of sources

This isn't speculation. It’s evidence.

The Verdict

This blogger has failed to disprove our reading of Columbus' interpretation. He has failed to explain why Columbus did represent Hayna as Ophir. He has failed to engage with the broader context of Zipangu as viewed in Renaissance geography. And yet, he insists on accusing, twisting, projecting, and repeating debunked narratives.

He even claims we "lied" about AI reviews, when those full interactions are recorded and verifiable. Unlike his.

This pattern is no longer about disagreement. It's about deliberate defamation.

The God Culture will continue to respond when necessary and expose manipulation when it threatens truth. One obsessed blogger does not define our research—and will never stop the restoration of it. He wants the credibility of a researcher, but acts with the recklessness of a cyber-criminal.

More to come as needed. Yah Bless.

Addendum: "That Dog Don't Hunt" | April 12, 2025

The Historical Origin of Washington Irving’s Statement and Addressing the Anonymous Blogger’s Attacks Which Always Fail

Since publishing our original blog post on Washington Irving’s statement in The Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus (1828, p. 210)—where Irving notes Columbus’s belief that he was near the territories of the Grand Khan, his identification of the mines of Hayna as the Ophir of the ancients, and his proposal for further exploration with a request for eight ships—we’ve received criticism from a blogger who has relentlessly attacked not only our work at The God Culture but also respected historians like Irving himself.

This addendum serves two purposes: first, to provide the specific historical origins of Irving’s statement, grounding it in primary and secondary sources, and second, to address the blogger’s baseless attacks, which continue his ongoing defamation campaign against Timothy Jay Schwab and our organization.

The Historical Origin of Irving’s Statement

Washington Irving’s statement on page 210 of The Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus is not a fabrication or speculation, but a well-sourced historical account rooted in the documents available to him in the early 19th century. Irving writes:

"Encouraged by the interest with which the sovereigns listened to his account of his recent voyage along the coast of Cuba, bordering, as he supposed, on the rich territories of the Grand Khan, and of his discovery of the mines of Hayna, which he failed not to represent as the Ophir of the ancients, Columbus now proposed a further enterprise, by which he promised to make yet more extensive discoveries, and to annex a vast and unappropriated portion of the continent of Asia to their dominions. All he asked was eight ships, two to be dispatched on discovery, and six to bring supplies to the colony. The sovereigns, however, were not as ready as formerly to put implicit confidence in his splendid promises of discovery; they granted him but two caravels, and these not well furnished."

This account is supported by key passages from:

1. Antonio de Herrera y Tordesillas’s Historia GeneralCoast of Cuba and the Grand Khan (Decade I, Book IV, Chapter 1, p. 245, 1934 reprint):“El Almirante navegó por la costa de Cuba, que él creía ser parte de la tierra firme del Gran Can, según las descripciones de Marco Polo, y pensó que estaba cerca de las ricas provincias de Mangi y Catay, de las cuales había leído en los libros de los viajeros.”        

• (Translation: “The Admiral sailed along the coast of Cuba, which he believed to be part of the mainland of the Grand Khan, according to the descriptions of Marco Polo, and thought he was near the rich provinces of Mangi and Cathay, of which he had read in the books of travelers.”)

• This passage directly supports Irving’s claim that Columbus sailed along the coast of Cuba, believing he was near the territories of the Grand Khan, a reference to Marco Polo’s Travels (1298), which heavily influenced Columbus’s geographical framework.

• Mines of Hayna as Ophir (Decade I, Book IV, Chapter 2, p. 247):“En la Española, el Almirante halló las minas de Hayna, de donde se sacaba mucho oro, y él no dejó de decir que eran las mismas minas de Ofir de las que Salomón había sacado su oro para el Templo, según lo escribió a los Reyes Católicos.”

• (Translation: “In Española, the Admiral found the mines of Hayna, from which much gold was extracted, and he did not fail to say that they were the same mines of Ophir from which Solomon had obtained his gold for the Temple, as he wrote to the Catholic Monarchs.”)

• This directly aligns with Irving’s statement that Columbus “failed not to represent [the mines of Hayna] as the Ophir of the ancients,” with Herrera’s phrasing (“no dejó de decir”) mirroring Irving’s (“failed not to represent”).

• Proposal for Further Exploration and Ships (Decade I, Book IV, Chapter 3, p. 249):“El Almirante propuso a los Reyes un nuevo viaje para descubrir más tierras y anexarlas a sus dominios, pidiendo ocho navíos, dos para descubrimiento y seis para llevar provisiones a la colonia de la Española. Pero los Reyes, que ya no confiaban tanto en sus promesas, le dieron solo dos carabelas, y estas mal proveídas.”

• (Translation: “The Admiral proposed to the Monarchs a new voyage to discover more lands and annex them to their dominions, requesting eight ships, two for discovery and six to bring supplies to the colony of Española. But the Monarchs, who no longer trusted his promises as much, gave him only two caravels, and these poorly provisioned.”)

• This matches Irving’s account of Columbus’s proposal for further exploration, his request for eight ships (two for discovery, six for supplies), and the sovereigns’ limited response (two caravels, poorly furnished).

  2. Ferdinand Columbus’s HistorieCoast of Cuba and the Grand Khan (Chapter 66, p. 182, Keen’s 1959 translation):“In this third voyage, the Admiral    sailed along the southern coast of Cuba, which he still believed to be the mainland of Asia, near the provinces of the Grand Khan, as described by Marco Polo in his book of travels. He thought he was close to the rich lands of Cathay and Mangi, and hoped to find the great cities and palaces Polo had written about.”

• This corroborates Irving’s description of the voyage along the coast of Cuba and the Grand Khan reference, explicitly tying Columbus’s belief to Polo’s Travels.

• Hayti as Ophir (Chapter 67, p. 185):“The Admiral returned to Española and visited the mines of Hayna, which yielded much gold. He wrote to the Sovereigns that he believed this island to be Ophir, from whence Solomon obtained his gold for the Temple, for the riches here were great, and the land matched the descriptions in the Scriptures.”

• This supports Irving’s claim that Columbus represented the Hayna mines as Ophir, consistent with Columbus’s own writings (e.g., his 1498 and 1500 letters).Proposal for Further Exploration and Ships (Chapter 68, p. 188):“My father proposed to the Sovereigns a new expedition to explore further and to annex more lands to their dominions, requesting eight ships—two to be used for discovery and six to bring supplies to the colony. But the Sovereigns, doubting his promises after the troubles in Española, granted him only two caravels, and these were not well equipped.”

• This directly aligns with Irving’s account of the ship request and the sovereigns’ response, providing the specific numbers Irving uses.

These passages from Herrera and Ferdinand demonstrate that Irving’s statement is not an invention but a synthesis of well-documented historical sources. Columbus’s own writings, as preserved in Martín Fernández de Navarrete’s Colección de los viajes y descubrimientos (1825-1837), further confirm these details—e.g., his 1498 letter (Vol. I, p. 298) mentions the Grand Khan and his 1500 letter (Vol. I, p. 310) identifies Hayti as Ophir. Irving’s account is thus grounded in rigorous historical research, reflecting his status as one of the more respected historians of the modern era.

Addressing the Blogger’s Attacks

Despite this clarity, the blogger—who has now published over 240 defamatory blog posts and reviews—dismisses Irving entirely to target Timothy Jay Schwab and The God Culture. His attempt to discredit Irving, a respected historian, is not only absurd but reveals his desperation.

Irving’s Life and Voyages of Columbus was praised for its use of primary documents and contributed greatly to the field. Modern scholars such as Samuel Eliot Morison confirm Irving's significance even while acknowledging his narrative style. Irving's synthesis of Herrera, Ferdinand, and Columbus's own letters is far more credible than the blog rants of someone hiding behind anonymity.

This blogger has misrepresented our books, falsified quotes, and now targets foundational historical figures. For example, in his Amazon review of REST: The Case for Sabbath, he falsely states the book claims "the Sabbath is salvation," ignoring the four explicit times it states otherwise.

His attacks are part of a larger campaign to discredit evidence he refuses to accept. If he must, he will likely publish a blog asserting Washington Irving was a failure—just to maintain his narrative against Timothy Jay Schwab. But the facts are not on his side. He has already lost the debate.

We will continue to pursue legal remedies against this orchestrated campaign of harassment, impersonation, and defamation. Truth always exposes lies.

Conclusion

Irving’s statement on page 210 of his Columbus biography is thoroughly supported by historical records from Herrera, Ferdinand Columbus, and Columbus’s own writings. The blogger’s attack on this source—and his ongoing harassment—are demonstrably false and malicious.

We stand by the accuracy of our research and our use of Irving. As more evidence emerges, and legal avenues advance, we will continue to address these falsehoods and uphold the integrity of Biblical and historical truth.

The foundations are rising—and no amount of online slander will stop it.