TCP....I suggest you take this conversation in a different direction. In addition to Eli-Kim, and Eli-Mar, the children in question also had the names (titles) Toraman and Hiranya. One of the sons was sent into prison or exile...his son (would be a grandson of Jesus) was hidden away. An uncle discovered him one day being raised in a potter's hut. He arranged with the priests to take the child to a safe place to be raised and educated. Did the child go from India to Europe? England? France? The name Hiranya appears on maps of old Europe, where it means 'the northern lands". It also means 'something golden', and also means something to do with potters and spinning wheels ....And so whether we are looking for Eli-Elain, Hiranya, Josephus....or any other name....we are looking for a child and for a name or title that comes closest to a correct description. In the case of Hiranya, all the descriptions in Sanskrit might apply to him...Was he Eli? Alain? Josephus?
All speculation based on hearsay, Sue - your own.
I answered you and I gave you a link to a site that provides transliterations. They are only partially helpful.
You provided a link to a website that provided language-variant diminutions of the name Elizabeth, the text of which I posted above. It is not helpful at all. You have posted nothing to back up your assertion about the name "Alain" deriving from the name "Eli".
I have told you of Saul's reference to a son of Jesus....and the carvings in India....then there are the charts by historians like Hugh Montgomery who mention Alain as the grandson of Jesus..Did the son Eli Kim take on the European version of the name-Alain when he was taken away?
I'd prefer references, Sue, repeating yourself doesn't strengthen your case. If Saul/Paul referred to a son of Jesus, where is the scriptural reference for this? Or has that been "edited" from the historical narrative too?
I posted three permutations as genealogy charts in my book for anyone interested in pursuing further, including one by Hugh Montgomery. ..stating clearly that evidence needs to be gathered and all are reasonable guesses for now.
Where are these posted? Under what subject heading? BTW, if Hugh Montgomery and Laurence Gardner are your "experts" then it is hardly surprising that you're vehemently resisting calls for references.
I have done my best and I can do no more. This is not an exact science.
Sure there is, you can provide references and refrain from acting like you're being put-upon to back up your own assertions.
If that is not good enough for you....then cuss away at me, or write your own book...I cannot think of anything else we can say about this... In ALL the research into RLC, bloodlines, holy grails, templars....one must draw inferences from what historical remains we have...Can you show me any ANY historical book that does not connect the dots in unique ways, depending upon the author's interpretation? We dont have all the exact answers. That's why it's called research. I have laid out everything I could to help others who will follow...They may make breakthroughs that will change all this....I am hopeful someone does! That is called progress.
That is called diversion, and this genre is rife with it. One scandal after another, ad nauseam, for decades. And all because pseudo-historical authors expect adulation for their "insights" which are merely the products of their fertile imaginations - which is why they never seem to be able or willing to present evidence and get huffy when asked about it.
And that is what we all hope for. I am realizing that this entire line of 'questioning" from you is uncalled for and unnecessary. It's one thing to actually read the book and ask the author intelligent questions.....it's quite another to make mindless attacks on a mere passage or two out of context and without understanding the entire background to it.....such as the search for names...
And there we have it - an author who considers critical questions regarding her work to be "uncalled for and unnecessary." An author who comes trolling on a forum to sell her book, initiates discussions that tie in to her book, and lambasts anyone who asks pointed questions about her forum posts for not having read her book. Congratulations, Sue - you've shown your true hand and your real motives.
I would have to rewrite the entire book here in order for you to grasp it, and I cannot and will not do that....I just dont have enough time.
You needn't bother, if you refuse to cite your sources here then you're certainly not going to cite them in print.
Nor do I see any other of Arcadia's authors being put through this, and I dont want to get suckered into endless and mindless head games with anyone here...so perhaps I will stick to posting the occasional clever little quote....that saves us all a lot of precious breadth and time. I'm sure you dont have the time for this either TCP...Please have a great day.
"Mindless head games"... yes, you can save us all a lot of time and attention by dropping yours. At least Kath McGowan had sense enough to fall back on the "fiction" excuse when she could no longer fight her way out of corners.