In message , bluebell
writes

"shazzbat" wrote in message
...

"Des Higgins" wrote in message
...

"Martin" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 20:46:55 +0100, "Baldoni"
wrote:

Does anyone know of any plants, shrubs etc. that are mentioned in the
bible
or the gospel that are available in the UK for purchase ?


olives?

Rose of Sharron. Its a member of the hebe family. I have one at home - quite
common I think.
--


In Britain Rose of Sharon normally refers to Hypericum calycinum, which
is far removed from the Hebe family (Scrophulariaceae, or
Veronicaceae/Plantaginaceae in the newer classifications). In America it
is Hibiscus syriacus. I'm told that in Australia the name can be applied
to Hibiscus mutabilis (better known as Confederate Rose).

What plant is the Biblical Rose of Sharon is uncertain; WikiPedia
suggests a Crocus, or Tulipa montana, or Tulipa agenensis, or Lilium
candidum. Christian Answers suggests Cistus (rock-rose), and Old
Dominion University has Gladiolus italicus or Gladiolus atroviolaceus.
Sharon United Methodist Church suggests Ornithogalum umbellatum in
addition to Hypericum calycium and Hibiscus syriacus. AllWords.com (an
online dictionary) suggests a type of Narcissus.

Which do you have?
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

"Stewart Robert Hinsley" wrote in message
...
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.

At the end of the dy it gave you an oportunity to show how much you know (
or stupid paedia - you know it can be wrong dont you? Its hardly
Britannica. But then even the last RHS guide is wrong too apparently). How
confusing it all is if you want to be literal.

I also have all of the other plants you mention in your list. But I didnt
plant my garden , its been done over generations by old fashioned country
people who probably couldnt tell what they were beyopnd common names either.

OK , so you are a great expert and I just have a Rose of Sharron and
obviously may not even know what species or family group it belongs to.

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

Thats all you have proved - and that modern gardeners are nasty aggressive
folk. There are ways of saying things - and then there is your way, which is
so common these days.




--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

"bluebell" wrote in message
...

"Stewart Robert Hinsley" wrote in message
...
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.

I also have a several forms of it " The Rose of Sharon". One grows upright
and another is prostrate. One has a large flower and the other a small
flower in clusters . It grwos like a weed in my garden. I am always pulling
it out - and its subject to some form of rust ( of course that gives you
another opportunity to tell me the differences between rusts, moulds and
insect infestations.

It doesnt matter. At the end of the day, its a plant and it has a name.
Thats all I need to know.

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.

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.

It would be great if you could share some of your knowledge of growing
plants with us. And, if you post advice outside your area of expertise,
and someone else has better knowledge than you and posts a correction,
then accept it gracefully as a learning experience. I've had a good many
'learning experiences' on this group!


Thats all you have proved - and that modern gardeners are nasty aggressive
folk. There are ways of saying things - and then there is your way, which is
so common these days.

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.


--
Kay

"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

"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

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

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