"K" wrote in message
...
bluebell writes



Which do you have?

Does it matter what I have? The OP asked if there were any plants which
available in Britain which are Biblical.

I have something called a Rose of Sharron. Rose of Sharron is Bibliucal.

But not perhaps the same plant which is called Rose of Sharon in the
Bible? That was one of the points of Stewart's posting.

I am an expert on the Bible as it happens. . You will have to go a long way
to establish what on earth any plant in the Bible would be in modern
parlance. They were not botanically trained. For them, any plant they
called the Rose of Sharon would be the the Rose of Sharon. So Biblically I
am correct. But thats another issue. No one will ever really know what
plant was the Rose of Sharon. The best you can do is find a plant that has
than name now - which is precisely what I suggested.



It remains a fact I have one and I can grow plants , regardless of
whether
my knowldege is correct.

It helps if knowledge is correct if it's being shared with other people.
I have never come across Rose of Sharon being used for a hebe, and the
most common use of Rose of Sharon is for Hypericum, which is certainly not
in the hebe family. If the OP buys a hebe in the belief that he is buying
the biblical Rose of Sharon, he's not getting what he wanted.

I would suggest that anyone buying any plant would be best advised just to
look at the label if they want the name of it. Its usually there id they are
buying new plants. Having said that the experts in nurseries cannot be
trusted. I have purchanced a " dafne" which turned out to be a willow. It
was winter and it was not in leaf so I couldnt tell.

I have had several other " surprise purchaces. But they are all plants. They
can all be beautiful. You dont need their names for that. Thats my point.




And there is your response, to Stewart's perfectly polite post showing
that some of your information was totally incorrect. It would seem you too
aspire to be a modern gardener.

On that we would have to differ. I thought he was rude. There are ways of
saying things and ways things have been said.

Had he started off by simply saying, " Are you sure you have that right, I
think...." ( which is actually very Biblical in terms of approach) and
then gave his lengthy exposition of knowledge. Real politeness costs
nothing.
But his way was the modern aggressive version. I am getting tired of
modern agression.
Maybe thats why I spend my time on my smallholding/ garden?

By the way, I also have qualifications ( like a degree) in botany and in
horticulture to level 4. I made a mistake on that plant. Its easy to do. I
am human. Its not one I deal with every day as I tend to grow peonies ,
roses, various species of bluebell , lots of herbs and a lot of medicinal
plants of various kinds.

As for the rest. I ventured here once. I will not be doing so again. I was
hurt by the way he said what he said. I am hurt by your condoning that
approach. I dont need that. Once bitten as they say.

"bluebell" wrote in message
...

"K" wrote in message
...
bluebell writes

Sorry about the typos. Have no time.

In message , bluebell
writes
Had he started off by simply saying, " Are you sure you have that
right, I think...." ( which is actually very Biblical in terms of
approach) and then gave his lengthy exposition of knowledge. Real
politeness costs nothing.

But I carefully avoided saying that you were wrong ...

But his way was the modern aggressive version. I am getting tired of
modern agression. Maybe thats why I spend my time on my smallholding/
garden?

.... which would seem to make what I wrote less "aggressive" than your
proposed alternative.
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

bluebell writes

As for the rest. I ventured here once. I will not be doing so again. I was
hurt by the way he said what he said. I am hurt by your condoning that
approach. I dont need that. Once bitten as they say.

I was upset by your aggressive defence to one of our most knowledgeable
and least confrontational posters.

We all of us make mistakes - I've posted complete rubbish along with the
best of them. If I see someone has posted something incorrect, and
someone corrects it, and they say 'Oops - got that wrong', then it
doesn't shake my faith in the rest of what they post. But if someone
reacts by defending themselves to the nth degree, I begin to wonder how
much of the rest of what they post is unreliable.

--
Kay

On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 bluebell wrote:

I am an expert on the Bible as it happens.

I wouldn't call myself an expert on the Bible - but who is? However I do
have quite a detailed knowledge of its teachings.

And there is your response, to Stewart's perfectly polite post showing
that some of your information was totally incorrect. It would seem you too
aspire to be a modern gardener.

On that we would have to differ. I thought he was rude. There are ways of
saying things and ways things have been said.

I saw nothing wrong with it. Aren't you feeling just a bit touchy?

Had he started off by simply saying, " Are you sure you have that right, I
think...." ( which is actually very Biblical in terms of approach)

Is it? Can you give me an example?

Do you really think that Saul of Tarsus would have approached people
that way? He wasn't noted for diplomacy. And, to be honest, neither was
Jesus. He was quite capable of cutting people down to size with his
comments. "Generation of vipers" comes to mind, and even "Get behind me,
Satan," addressed to one of his closest followers. When Jesus said that
he had to go to Jerusalem to be executed and Peter argued with him,
Jesus didn't say, "Are you sure you have that right, Peter?"

David

--
David Rance http://www.mesnil.demon.co.uk
Fido Address: 2:252/110 writing from Caversham, Reading, UK

On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 bluebell wrote:

I have something called a Rose of Sharron. Rose of Sharron is Bibliucal.

But not perhaps the same plant which is called Rose of Sharon in the
Bible? That was one of the points of Stewart's posting.

I am an expert on the Bible as it happens. . You will have to go a long way
to establish what on earth any plant in the Bible would be in modern
parlance. They were not botanically trained. For them, any plant they
called the Rose of Sharon would be the the Rose of Sharon. So Biblically I
am correct. But thats another issue. No one will ever really know what
plant was the Rose of Sharon.

Quite right. There is only one reference to the Rose of Sharon in the
Bible. Song of Solomon, chapter 2, verse 1. "I am the rose of Sharon,
and the lily of the valleys." Absolutely no clue there as to what the
"Rose of Sharon" and the "Lily of the Valley" were. Indeed, it wasn't
describing plants but the interpretation put on it by scholars is that
they are descriptions of Christ. The connection with plants came much
more recently when gardeners wanted to give a Biblical reference to a
plant that they had.

So, there is no such thing as the Rose of Sharon as a plant in the
Bible!

David
--
David Rance http://www.mesnil.demon.co.uk
Fido Address: 2:252/110 writing from Caversham, Reading, UK

"David Rance" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 bluebell wrote:


Had he started off by simply saying, " Are you sure you have that right, I
think...." ( which is actually very Biblical in terms of approach)

Is it? Can you give me an example?

Jesus ( if you read and translate to the aramic rather than thinking you
know whats what from the Anglasied versions of the Bible), often used the
term "Son of man" which in fact in aramaic , although its been translated
into Greek as "Hou houis to anthrapou" which is a term totally unfamiliar in
NT greek and so is probably a phrase from aramaic where it has common usage.

Aramaic was Jesus' language for every day use. He would preach in it in
first century Palastine as it was the common language of his region. In his
native language is " Bar nasha"
( transliterated because I dont have a hebrew / aramic keyboard or a Greek
one)
was very often used by Jesus to make a suggestion of his own when in a
discussion. The term bar nasha does not actualy mean " Son of man" it means
" I think " " this one thinks" in the normal parlance of the language ,

and in aramic culture of the time it was a very polite way of doing it. It
was a phrase designed not to give offense.

I am not touchy. When someone ends their grand tirade with " which one do
you have?" It ceases to be polite.

On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 bluebell wrote:

Had he started off by simply saying, " Are you sure you have that right, I
think...." ( which is actually very Biblical in terms of approach)

Is it? Can you give me an example?

Jesus ( if you read and translate to the aramic rather than thinking you
know whats what from the Anglasied versions of the Bible), often used the
term "Son of man" which in fact in aramaic , although its been translated
into Greek as "Hou houis to anthrapou" which is a term totally unfamiliar in
NT greek and so is probably a phrase from aramaic where it has common usage.

Aramaic was Jesus' language for every day use. He would preach in it in
first century Palastine as it was the common language of his region. In his
native language is " Bar nasha"
( transliterated because I dont have a hebrew / aramic keyboard or a Greek
one)
was very often used by Jesus to make a suggestion of his own when in a
discussion. The term bar nasha does not actualy mean " Son of man" it means
" I think " " this one thinks" in the normal parlance of the language ,

Well, I have never heard that interpretation before! It is certainly not
mainstream theology. Aramaic is only a dialect of Hebrew, not a separate
language. "Bar" means "son of" in both Hebrew and Aramaic. What branch
of Christianity teaches you your interpretation?

David

--
David Rance http://www.mesnil.demon.co.uk
Fido Address: 2:252/110 writing from Caversham, Reading, UK

In article ,
David Rance writes:
|
| Well, I have never heard that interpretation before! It is certainly not
| mainstream theology. Aramaic is only a dialect of Hebrew, not a separate
| language. "Bar" means "son of" in both Hebrew and Aramaic. What branch
| of Christianity teaches you your interpretation?

Well, I have never heard THAT before! All of the references I have
seen give New Testament Aramaic and Old Testament Hebrew the sort of
relationship that modern German and Old Norse have. I.e. a sort of
avuncular relationship, not even a direct one - let alone calling
Aramaic merely a dialect of Hebrew!

"Son"/"sohn" means "son" in both German and Old Norse.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

bluebell writes


I am not touchy. When someone ends their grand tirade with " which one do
you have?" It ceases to be polite.

I think that statement has rather proved David's point!
--
Kay

"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message
...

In article ,
David Rance writes:
|
| Well, I have never heard that interpretation before! It is certainly
not
| mainstream theology. Aramaic is only a dialect of Hebrew, not a
separate
| language. "Bar" means "son of" in both Hebrew and Aramaic. What branch
| of Christianity teaches you your interpretation?

I am sorry, but its ABSOLUTELY mainstream theology. I did my degree and Ph.D
in theology at Trinity College Cambridge and its very mainstream
interpretation.

Within the Aramaic dialelect bar nasha ( which you are quite correct " bar
"does mean son in Hebrew) is used to mean I think or this one thinks. ie
the son of man thinks ( ie I think , or this one thinks , or methinks even
to use old English)

"bluebell" wrote in message
...

"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message
...

In article ,
David Rance writes:
|
| Well, I have never heard that interpretation before! It is certainly
not
| mainstream theology. Aramaic is only a dialect of Hebrew, not a
separate
| language. "Bar" means "son of" in both Hebrew and Aramaic. What branch
| of Christianity teaches you your interpretation?

I am sorry, but its ABSOLUTELY mainstream theology. I did my degree and
Ph.D in theology at Trinity College Cambridge and its very mainstream
interpretation.

Within the Aramaic dialelect bar nasha ( which you are quite correct "
bar "does mean son in Hebrew) is used to mean I think or this one thinks.
ie the son of man thinks ( ie I think , or this one thinks , or methinks
even to use old English)



Oh dear :-((

Aggression rears its ugly head in uk.rec.gardening ONCE again :-((

This time over Fairy Stories. Have a go at Cinderella or Snow White.

:-((

Mike


--
.................................................. ..............
The Royal Naval Electrical Branch Association.
'THE' Association if you served in the Electrical Branch of the Royal Navy
www.rneba.org.uk

"'Mike'" wrote in message
...

"bluebell" wrote in message
...

"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message
...

In article ,
David Rance writes:
|
| Well, I have never heard that interpretation before! It is certainly
not
| mainstream theology. Aramaic is only a dialect of Hebrew, not a
separate
| language. "Bar" means "son of" in both Hebrew and Aramaic. What
branch
| of Christianity teaches you your interpretation?

I am sorry, but its ABSOLUTELY mainstream theology. I did my degree and
Ph.D in theology at Trinity College Cambridge and its very mainstream
interpretation.

Within the Aramaic dialelect bar nasha ( which you are quite correct "
bar "does mean son in Hebrew) is used to mean I think or this one thinks.
ie the son of man thinks ( ie I think , or this one thinks , or methinks
even to use old English)



Oh dear :-((

Aggression rears its ugly head in uk.rec.gardening ONCE again :-((

This time over Fairy Stories. Have a go at Cinderella or Snow White.

:-((

I am not sure what you mean by " fairy story. Care to ellaborate? I am just
discussing Language usage first century Palastine.

On the other hand if you are refering to the idea that a person called Jesus
did not exist and so thats a fairy story ?( Ive heard this one a lot
recently. Mostly amongst kids in schools being fed the line by atheistic RE
teachers who neither know their theology nor understand the nature of faith
.. It was an argument shoved forward back in the 1920's and then the 60's
last, and I thought it had been well established that the line of thought
did not have sufficient strength to sustain it)

That said. I have no axe to grind because I just taking an academic line on
the Bible here. But I think you could cause offense to many.

I think you will find most mainstream philosophers / theologians ( including
atheist ones these days!) and archeologists accept a person called Jesus ,
probably an itinerant preacher ( there were many such in first century
Palastine) , Jewish ( Jewish authjorities dont deny it) and aramaic speaking
did exist and was cricified. He was not a made up figure or fairy tale He
was not some conglomerate of many figures.

Beyond that is conjecture and belief. ( ie whas he the long awaited
Messiah of Judaism or a prophet ( as Islam believes) or the Son of God in
Christian faith is neither here nor there is what I am suggesting.

To suggest that this figure was a fairy tale is highly offensive, not just
to those who may believe in Christianity but also to scholars in the Jewish
tradition and to members of the Islamic community.


As for aggression in this forum . I would agree with that comment.

In message , bluebell
writes

"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message
...

In article ,
David Rance writes:
|
| Well, I have never heard that interpretation before! It is certainly
not
| mainstream theology. Aramaic is only a dialect of Hebrew, not a
separate
| language. "Bar" means "son of" in both Hebrew and Aramaic. What branch
| of Christianity teaches you your interpretation?

I am sorry, but its ABSOLUTELY mainstream theology. I did my degree and Ph.D
in theology at Trinity College Cambridge and its very mainstream
interpretation.

Within the Aramaic dialelect bar nasha ( which you are quite correct " bar
"does mean son in Hebrew) is used to mean I think or this one thinks. ie
the son of man thinks ( ie I think , or this one thinks , or methinks even
to use old English)


If one looks at where the phrase "son of man" is used in the Bible (see
URL:http://www.google.com/search?num=100...all&q=%22Son+o
f+man%22+site%3Abible.org%2Fverse.php) one finds that your suggested
idiomatic translation of the phrase doesn't fit in many of verses in
which it is used.
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

"bluebell" wrote in message
...

"'Mike'" wrote in message
...

"bluebell" wrote in message
...

I am sorry, but its ABSOLUTELY mainstream theology. I did my degree and
Ph.D in theology at Trinity College Cambridge and its very mainstream
interpretation.

Snip
From previous post:
"By the way, I also have qualifications ( like a degree) in botany and in
horticulture to level 4."


So how is it that you missed out on elementary English composition and
spelling?



Oh dear :-((

Aggression rears its ugly head in uk.rec.gardening ONCE again :-((

This time over Fairy Stories. Have a go at Cinderella or Snow White.

:-((


To suggest that this figure was a fairy tale is highly offensive, not just
to those who may believe in Christianity but also to scholars in the
Jewish tradition and to members of the Islamic community.


As for aggression in this forum . I would agree with that comment.

Ask, and it shall be given!