|
|
Welcome to the InterfaithForums forums. You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions, articles and access our other FREE features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload your own photos and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today! If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact support. |
|
|||||||
| Religious Debate Debate religions and religious topics. |
 |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
26th November 2007, 04:26 PM
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
That's what it's called now. For example, what is now called the "rose of Sharon" (Sharon is a geographic region in Israel) was not likely to actually have been the "rose of Sharon" mentioned in scripture since there's no evidence it grew there back when scripture was written. Instead, it appears more likely based on the limited description that it may be a tulip type that is rose colored (red) that did indeed bloom in the desert in February/March. Isn't that just rosy! Shalom, Vern 
|
|
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Wormwood
Linear Mode
